1 S.B. Civil writ petition No.11563/2009 Shri Kant Rao vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order dated 13.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Girish Sankhala, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner his name was considered for giving appointment on the post of Shiksha Sahayogi and his name was at S.No.3. The person whose name at S.No.1 Ganpat Lal though was given appointment, but he left the services then appointment was given to one Sh. Lumba Ram. The petitioner submitted representation to the respondents for giving appointment to him on the basis of his selection in the merit list prepared vide Annex.1 which is dated 6th May, 1999. The petitioner though approached this court by filing the writ petition no.1865/2003 and in that writ petition only it was prayed that petitioner's representation is pending before the respondents and respondents may be directed to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. This court vide order 2 dated 3.8.2004 ordered that if the petitioner's representation is pending, the same may be decided in accordance with law. The petitioner, therefore, now on 30th July, 2009 has approached this court with the plea that according to him, his representation has not been decided by the respondents. It appears from the facts of the case that it is a stale claim. The petitioner could not succeed in selection as his candidature was at S.No.3 in the select list dated 6th May, 1999 and one Sh. Ganpat Lal was offered appointment. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the action of the respondent of giving appointment to Luma Ram in the year 2003 and has filed writ petition with the only plea that his representation has not been decided by the respondents and then after about 5 years, the petitioner again approached this court. The petitioner's submitting representation cannot extend the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner was knowing it well that in case the order of this court is not complied with in time he could have approached the court forthwith. Otherwise also, on the basis of select list of 1999 wherein also, the petitioner was not successful, the 3 petitioner cannot seek any appointment in the year 2010. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-