1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1790/2002. : : Mrs. Aneita Pande Vs. University of Rajasthan. : : Date of Order 3.7.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Rajdeepak Ratogi with Ms.Shweta Pareek for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Sharma for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by Mrs. Aneita Pande with the prayer that respondent-University of Rajasthan be directed to consider her case for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor on the basis of regular selection approved by Syndicate on 9.2.1985 with all consequential benefits. Background facts as narrated in the writ petition are that respondent advertised five permanent and five leave/temporary vacancies on the post of Lecturer in the subject of History. The petitioner applied and was called for interview by the Selection Committee on 4, 5, 6.1.1985 along with others. The Selection Committee recommended as many 2 as 8 names of different general candidates out of which name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.7 and one Dr.Abdul Muzeeb Khan was recommended at Serial No.8. Since two posts were reserved for SC/ST candidates, therefore, two names were separately recommended. It is contended that in the month of 1985 husband of petitioner, who is working in Atomic Energy Department of the Central Government, was transferred to Shillong in the State of Meghalya where they stayed upto 1989 and thereafter he was transferred to Hyderabad where they remained upto November, 1999. It was thereafter the petitioner came back to Jaipur in March, 2000 when her husband was transferred to Jaipur. It was thereafter she made enquiry from the respondent and came to know that one Dr.Abdul Mujeeb Khan placed lower in the merit list was appointed on the post of Lecturer pursuant to judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1.8.1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when Mr.A.M.Khan was granted appointment, it was bounden duty of the respondent to inform the petitioner and offer her such appointment because of her higher placement in the merit. Since the petitioner fulfill all the eligible conditions and had experience of the working who was candidature could 3 not be ignored. It was argued that the delay cannot come in the way of the petitioner because initially when she was at Jaipur she could not be given appointment because non- availability of vacancies. It was required of the respondent to inform her prior to offering appointment to Dr.A.M.Khan. Mr.A.K.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University submits that the writ petitions suffers from gross delay and latches. If the petitioner remained out of Jaipur for 14 long years on account of posting of her husband at Shillong or Hyderabad, that cannot be possibly a sufficient reason to explain such an enormous delay. While the petitioner did not pursue the matter, Shri A.M.Khan coming to know about availability of the vacancies, based on his selection, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.881/85. The respondent did not appoint him but contested the writ petition and when the writ petition was allowed by this Court dated 1.8.89 appointed him in 1991. It was argued that the present writ petition has been filed 11 years thereafter. A right having now accrued in place of Dr.A.M.Khan cannot be taken so lightly interfered with as the instance of a litigant who is not vigilant about her right. 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that argument of the petitioner that the respondent upon availability of additional vacancies ought to have been informed the petitioner and when they appointed Dr.A.M.Khan should have first offered such appointment to the petitioner cannot be accepted because respondent on their own did not offer him appointment. Infact when the respondent did not fill up the additional vacancies and he approached this Court by filing writ petition. That writ petition infact had been filed way back in the year 1985 which shows that he has not only vigilant about his right but had been regularly pursuing the matter. The petitioner, on the contrary, was contended by not at all pursuing the matter. She infact went away from Jaipur in between 14 years. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any effort was made by her to enquire about the status of the matter. Nor did she in the intervening period make any representation till she returned from Hyderabad and made a representation in 2000 which was rejected by the respondent. Now when Dr.A.M.Khan has been appointed and that too pursuant to judgment of this Court and Dr.A.M.Khan is not even impleaded as party respondent, no interference at this belated stage can possibly be made. 5 In the result, this writ petition which suffers from gross delay and latches, stands dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.50.