CWP 10239 /09 1 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** Civil Writ Petition No.10239/2009 Kailash Chand Versus The State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 05/10/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RC Jatav, for petitioner The petitioner, who is presently working as Ward Boy in the regular pay scale, as is evident from order dated 25th September, 1996 (Anx.6), has filed instant petition with the grievance that the similarly situated persons, who were working as Ward Boy have been appointed on regular basis from 1994 for which the petitioner earlier made representation which remained unheaded has compelled him to approach this Court to file the instant petition. It is evident from the record that earlier a writ petition bearing CWP No. 635/1990 came to be filed before this Court which was decided on 09/10/1991 and this court directed the respondents to determine the vacancies in the cadre of Class IV and make appointment in accordance with law. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the writ petitioner was appointed in the cadre of Class IV as Ward Boy vide order dated 25/09/1996 against the available vacancies in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 09/10/1991. The grievance of the petitioner that those, CWP 10239 /09 2 who were similarly situated were appointed as Ward Boy prior to him in 1994, is without substance for the reason that the writ petitioners, who earlier approached this Court, were considered for appointment in the cadre of Class IV (Ward Boy) and appointed vide order dated 25/09/1996. Nothing has been placed on record by which this Court can infer that those, who were appointed prior thereto, were in any manner junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Ward Boy. Apart from it, the petitioner was appointed way back in 1996 and after 13 years of his appointment he has raised his voice, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after such inordinate unexplained delay. Consequently, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu/10239-cw-2009-final.doc