1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4742/02 Dinesh & Ors. vs. Chairman, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of order : 3/12/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Karan Pal Singh for the petitioners. Shri Mukesh Kumar for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed by five petitioners with the grievance that in spite of the fact that they have been appointed on the post of Sub Engineer advertised by the respondent in the year 1998 and also faced interview on 23.4.1999, the respondents have so far not provided appointment to them. It is claimed by the petitioners that in fact the respondents prepared a select list but did not go ahead for making appointments. Instead, they issued a fresh advertisement on 2.1.2002 in which they did not illegally consider the claims of the petitioners. According to Shri Karan Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, name of petitioners did not appear in the select list prepared subsequently because the respondents did not award them the bonus 2 marks. Each of the respondents were entitled to twelve bonus marks, six for bona fide residence of Rajasthan and another six for the diploma / decree depending on the year in which such diploma / decree was obtained with two marks being awarded for each of the passing year. Learned counsel therefore argued that the subsequent select list dated 1.6.2002 and the notice be quashed and set aside and alternatively the respondents be directed to provide appointment to the petitioners by awarding them twelve bonus marks. The respondents have contested the writ petition. Shri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the earlier selection of the year 1998 was abandoned because of the ban imposed by the Government in the year 1999. The respondents have placed on record the Government Circular dated 30.8.1999 imposing such a ban. It was argued that mere selection does not confer any right, more particularly when the fresh advertisement was issued in the year 2002 and the petitioners faced such selections. Petitioners have approached this 3 Court belatedly when they were not selected in the recruitment process of the year 2002. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. I have carefully considered the matter and perused the material on record. The petitioners have approached this Court claiming appointment on the basis of their participation in the selection process of the year 1999. Petitioners assert that while they were selected in the recruitment process of the year 1999, but actually such appointment in the recruitment process of the year 2002. Their names did not figure in the select list and this happened because of the criteria adopted by the respondents. It is clear that the respondents cancelled the earlier selection process because of the ban imposed by the Government vide Circular dated 30.8.1999. If the petitioners were aggrieved by their non appointment despite selection in the year 1999, they should have immediately approached this Court. The petitioners instead remained contended and applied for appointment pursuant to the fresh advertisement dated 2.1.02. This time 4 when they were not selected, they approached this Court by filing the writ petition claiming their appointment on the strength of the participation in the earlier selection process of the year 1999. In my considered view, having participated in the selection process of 2002 knowing well what was the criteria of the selection, the petitioners are now estopped from challenging the said selection. No relief can be granted on the strength of their mere participation in the selection process of the year 1999 because writ petition for that relief suffers from delay and latches and has been filed by way of an afterthought. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/