1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Ghanshyam Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3441/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :- March 12, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for the petitioners. Aggrieved by the advertisement dated 10.02.2010 issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, the petitioners have challenged the same before this Court. According to the petitioners, practice of the Government was to advertise post of “Junior Engineer (Civil)” in equal ratio for both the Degree Holders and the Diploma Holders. This practice was followed in order to give equal opportunity of appointment to both the categories. Vide advertisement dated 10.02.2010, 167 posts of “Junior Engineer (Civil)” in Jaipur Development Authority and Jodhpur Development Authority have been announced by the Department of Urban Development and Housing. However, instead of inviting applications from the Diploma Holders, the 2 applications only from the Degree Holders were invited. Since the petitioners happen to be Diploma Holders, they were aggrieved by the exclusion of the Diploma Holders from the said advertisement. According to the advertisement, the last date for the submission of the application was 05.03.2010. The petitioners have made the following prayers in the writ petition: (a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the impugned Advertisement No.P.1(10) NVV/11/05 Part dated 10.02.2010 issued by the respondents inviting application for appointment to the post of “Junior Engineer (Civil)” by fixing prescribed educational eligibility as Degree Holder only may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to re-advertise the post of “Junior Engineer (Civil)” in equal ratio for both Diploma and Degree Holder by the nomenclature of “Junior Engineer (Civil)” (Diploma Holder) and “Junior Engineer (Civil)” (Degree Holder) to provide equal opportunity of appointment to both categories of the Engineers. The petitioners have also made the following interim prayer before this Court : 3 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances all the ingredients essential for granting ad-interim stay such as strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, it is humbly prayed by way of interim relief operation of the Advertisement No. P.1(10) NVV/II/05 Part dated 10.02.2010 may kindly be completely stayed in all respect till final disposal of the writ petition. Alternatively, it is humbly prayed that the respondents may be directed to accept the application forms of the petitioners and allowed them to participate in pursuant to the said Advertisement dated 10.02.2010 provisionally subject to final outcome of the writ petition. Undoubtedly the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on 05.03.2010, i.e. the last date for submission of the application form. Since the petitioners are challenging an advertisement which was published on 10.02.2010 and yet the petition has been filed on the last date for submission of the application form, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is hit by delay and latches. Once, last date for submission of the application form is over, this Court certainly would not be justified in directing the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioners and to allow them to participate provisionally in the selection process. Since the petitioners were very well aware of the fact that the advertisement was excluding the Diploma Holders from the post of “Junior Engineer (Civil)”, they should have immediately 4 rushed to the Court and challenge the advertisement condition. Since they have waited for the last date of filing of the application form for challenging the advertisement, they cannot be permitted to create an obstacle in the selection process. If the petitioners were serious about challenging the condition excluding the Diploma Holders, they had ample time between 10.02.2010 to 05.03.2010 to do so. The petitioners have not given any cogent reason for their belated response to the advertisement. Thus, this writ petition is hit by delay and latches. Hence, this petition is, hereby, dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-