IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.682/2009 (Ramdhan Versus State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Order :: 24th August, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.C. GANDHI HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Harsh Sharma for Miss Firoj Akhtar for the appellant BY THE COURT: This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2.2.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564/2002, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner's services came to be terminated in September, 1996. He approached the Court challenging his termination order in 2002. The learned Single has considered this aspect of the matter by recording the following observations: “....petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi with Panchayat samiti Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur vide order dated 3.10.1992. Petitioner filed a complaint against one Kailash Chand Gurjar to the Secretary, Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi, Jaipur requiring the petitioner to produce the medical certificate from a psychologist. The petitioner got himself examined by -2- Dr. Shiv Gautam and produced a certificate. According to the said certificate, the petitioner was fit for being continued in service. The action of the respondents in terminating services of the petitioner by verbal order in the year 1996 was wholly illegal. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have opposed the writ petition and have submitted that the petitioner was suffering from some psychological disease and he was undergoing treatment. If he was aggrieved by his termination in September, 1996, he should have immediately approached this Court. The writ petition being filed with delay and latches should be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that this writ petition has been filed with the delay of more than six years in 2002, while the services of the petitioner were terminated in September, 1996. The petitioner should have approached this Court within reasonable time.” We do not find any illegality committed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant could not explain the inordinate delay of six years. The delay itself is a circumstance which disentitles the party to seek relief. No case is made out for admission of the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. (R.C. GANDHI),J. DK/