S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2310/2007 (Sanjay Kumar Suthar Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) Date of order : 2nd January 2008 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Dron Kaushik for the petitioner. … BY THE COURT: By way of this petition for writ filed in the month of February 2007, the petitioner has sought directions for his appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III under an advertisement (Annex.1) that was issued on 09.08.1998. With reference to the requisite qualifications stated in the said advertisement dated 09.08.1998, inter alia, of Senior Secondary and C.P.Ed./B.P.Ed., the petitioner has averred that he is a candidate of Other Backward Class and has cleared Senior Secondary Examination in Vocational Course in the year 1995; that though not required, the persons like the petitioner having done Senior Secondary in Vocational Course were asked to clear a Bridge Course for the purpose of such appointments; that, however, the petitioner appeared in the Bridge Course and cleared the same in second attempt. The petitioner has taken an averment that the respondent- department had issued a ‘tentative seniority list’ for such appointment wherein his name was shown at Serial No.26; and has placed on record a document in that regard as 1 Annexure-5. According to the petitioner, later on the said condition for completion of Bridge Course was imposed, and then he was verbally informed that the persons having not cleared the Bridge Course in first attempt would not be accorded appointment. The petitioner has further averred that for the purpose of Bridge Course, special forms were issued to the persons holding the qualification of C.P.Ed. or B.P.Ed. wherein three chances were given to clear the Bridge Course and has placed on record a document in that regard as Annexure-6. The petitioner has then contended that the same condition regarding clearing the Bridge Course occurred in relation to the appointments of Primary School Teachers and this Court has later on resolved the controversy; and even the persons having cleared in third attempt were given appointment. On the basis of and with reference to the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has taken the grounds that he stood at Serial No. 26 as per ‘merit list’ tentatively issued by the department but was illegally refused the appointment for having cleared Senior Secondary in Vocational Course and was asked to undergo Bridge Course; that though such requirement of Bridge Course was not justified, he had even cleared the said Bridge Course in second attempt and yet was not given appointment although as per the examination 2 circular (Annex.6), Bridge Course could have been cleared in three chances; that less meritorious persons had been given appointment in a discriminatory manner; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan: JT 2001 (10) SC 178 had resolved the controversy regarding equivalence of Senior Secondary Vocational Examination and Senior Secondary Academic Examination and it is the duty of the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner as per the judgment delivered in Sunita Sharma's case. The petitioner has prayed for the relief thus: ''It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and the petitioner be given appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in Physical Training Instructor in Education Department for which he applied.'' Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the averments taken in the petition, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition at such a belated stage. Leaving aside the aspect that vague and uncertain averments as taken in the petition hardly make out any cause of action for seeking any writ, order, or direction, there appears no reason to consider this writ petition filed in the year 2007 in relation to appointments that were to be made by 31.03.1999 under the advertisement dated 09.08.1998 (Annex.1). Even 3 while filing this petition in the month of February 2007, eight years after completion of selection process, the petitioner has not stated anything towards the cause for such inordinate delay and it is difficult to find any right subsisting in the petitioner to seek appointment with reference to the advertisement issued in the year 1998. The petition suffers from gross and inordinate delay and deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purshottam Vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B and anr.: (1999) 6 SCC 49 to submit that the petitioner was illegally denied the appointment on the erroneous decision of the employer himself and, therefore, deserves to be allowed appointment. The aforesaid decision in Purshottam's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case nor the said case could be read as laying down a rule of universal application that irrespective of delay, a candidate could seek appointment by filing a writ petition eight years after completion of the selection process. The submission as if there was any ‘seniority list’ or ‘merit list’ as taken in this writ petition remains vague and uncertain; and the incomplete document Annexure-5 does not appear to be a select list nor makes out any case that the petitioner was considered eligible for appointment by the 4 respondents at the relevant time or that process of selection was kept pending by the respondents for the purpose of the petitioner and the like candidates completing the Bridge Course. The averment that later the petitioner was verbally informed that the candidates not clearing Bridge Course in first attempt would not be accorded appointment, to say the least, is neither here nor there. There is nothing whatsoever on record to corroborate such an uncertain averment. In the given fact situation, Sunita Sharma's case (supra) has hardly any bearing on the claim of the petitioner and, thus, other aspects of the matter need no dilatation in this case. The petition does not merit admission and is, therefore, rejected. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. 5