1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Narayan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2495/95) Dated: 10.3.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.Narpat Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Tiwari, Additional Government Counsel. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction against the respondents to accord him appointment on the post of Constable(CP). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated 5.3.87 issued by District Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur , applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Constable . The petitioner being eligible applied for the post, he was interviewed by the Recruitment Board . Out of the 84 vacancies advertised, 48 posts were filled in from amongst the candidates belonging to the general category. However, 3 posts belonging to the reserved category were not filled in by the respondents on account of non availability of the suitable candidates and the said vacancies were sought to be carry forward. The petitioner 2 assailed the validity of carrying forward of the vacancies belonging to the reserved category before this Court by way of writ petition( DB Civil Writ Petition No.1618/89) and claimed that if the eligible candidates are not available then, the remaining vacancies belonging to the reserved category must be filled in from amongst the candidates belonging to the general category. Some other candidates, who had also appeared in the selection, being hopeful of getting appointment on vacancies belonging to the reserved category being filled in from amongst the candidates belonging to the general category, also preferred writ petition before this Court. All the writ petitions were decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.5.89, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner herein, Shri Kundan Singh and Shri Damodar were allowed and the respondents were directed to give appointment to them. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after directions issued by this Court, the respondents have not accorded him appointment on the post of Constable(CP) . It is stated that the petitioner was orally informed that since a criminal case u/s 379 of IPC is pending trial against him before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, therefore, he cannot be accorded appointment. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has already been acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction in the said criminal case vide judgment dated 30.10.91 and the 3 State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal, therefore, the same has attained finality. It is further submitted that even after request being made time and again, the respondents did not give any satisfactory reply, therefore, they were served by the petitioner with a notice for demand of justice dated 7.2.94. It is stated that in response to the aforesaid notice, vide communication dated 26.5.94, the petitioner was informed by the respondent no.2 that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, vide judgment dated 16.5.89, the petitioner was accorded appointment vide order dated 24.5.89 but, he has not joined duties in pursuance thereof, therefore, the appointment order has been cancelled. Though, the petitioner has stated in the petition that said communication 26.5.94 is annexed as Annexure 2 but, a perusal of the Annexure 2 on record shows that it is a communication dated 28.9.87, whereby the petitioner was informed that the appointments are made on the basis of seniority and roster, therefore, according to merit , whenever his turn will come, order shall be issued. The petitioner has taken the stand that he has never received any information from the respondent no.2 regarding appointment being accorded to him on the post of Constable,thus, the denial of appointment is illegal and arbitrary. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein a categorical stand has been taken that the 4 petitioner was accorded appointment on the post of Constable (CP) on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 24.5.89 issued by the respondent no.2. It is submitted that the order was served upon the petitioner on 24.5.89 itself by hand.However, the petitioner did not join the duties and further on verification of his character,he was not found suitable for employment in police service, therefore, the appointment accorded was cancelled vide order dated 15.9.89(Annexure R/4). 5. It is to be noticed that in pursuance of directions issued by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.5.89 , all the three candidates including the petitioner were accorded appointment by a common order dated 24.5.89 placed on record as Annexure 2. The respondents have taken a categorical stand that after physical fitness test conducted on 24.5.89, all the three candidates including the petitioner were served with the appointment order on the same day by hand and in pursuance thereof, Shri Damodar Singh reported on duties on 24.5.89 itself and Shri Kundan Singh reported on duties on 25.5.89 but, the petitioner despite knowledge of the appointment being accorded, did not join duties for the reasons best known to him. The averments made in the reply to the writ petition as aforesaid are not denied by the petitioner by filing any counter. Further, the respondents have taken the categorical stand that since the petitioner did not join the duties, therefore, the appointment 5 accorded was cancelled vide order dated 15.9.89 which has been placed on record as Annexure R/4. It is to be noticed that aforesaid order cancelling the appointment is not impugned in the writ petition. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case vide judgment dated 30.10.91 and thereafter, the notice for demand of justice was served upon the respondents on behalf of the petitioner after a lapse of about two and half years. Though, it is stated by the petitioner that many a time request was made to the respondents to give him appointment but, no document whatsoever has been placed on record showing that any such efforts was made on behalf of the petitioner at any point of time. Thus, apparently the writ petition suffers from vice of delay and laches. 6. In my considered opinion, the petitioner having failed to join duties in pursuance of the appointment accorded vide order dated 24.5.89, the respondents have committed no error in cancelling the appointment vide order dated 15.9.89. Moreover, at this stage, after a lapse of about more than 9 years, no relief prayed for in the petition can be granted. 7. In totality of the circumstances noticed above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.