1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4462/2004. : : Smt.Lalita Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 24.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Ravindra Kumar Soni for the petitioner. Ms.Sukesh Kasana, Deputy Govt.Counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Teacher in Government Girls Primary School, Hamidpur, District Behrod and allow her to mark her attendance in the attendance register. Shri Ravindra Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even though the petitioner was allowed to join on 25.9.1993, but thereafter she was refused to mark her attendance from 30.9.1993 and since thereafter the petitioner continued to attend the school but she was not allowed to mark her attendance and join her duty. Learned counsel referred to letter dated 25.2.2004 (Annex.20) and argued that in that letter the Block Primary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Behrod has submitted a report to 2 Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar stating that attendance register of 1993 is not available. It is argued that respondents were required to produce the relevant records and petitioner cannot be therefore, faulted. Ms.Sukesh Kasana, Deputy Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that Annex.9, alleged joining report is a forged document and that does not contain the signatures of Headmistress. The order dated 14.9.1993 was issued by mistake, but by subsequent order dated 24.9.1993, the order dated 14.9.1993 was cancelled and when the order of initial appointment itself was cancelled, therefore, there was no question of permitting to the petitioner to join her duty. Cause of action for filing this writ petition arose in the year 1993, but the writ petition has been filed belatedly on 12.7.2004. Even if the respondents in the inter departmental communication have mentioned about the loss of records, the delay of 9 years in filing the writ petition cannot be ignored. If the petitioner himself is not vigilant about his own rights, law cannot come to his rescue . In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- 3