By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner dated 11.01.201 for giving them employment/appointment in lieu of their acquired lands and take appropriate decision upon the representation dated 11.01.2011 as expeditiously as possible and further directed that the petitioners are entitled to get appointment/employment as per the policy and notification dated 01.02.1978 and 12.05.1984.
2. Mr.
P.H.Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled for the employment/appointment as per the Scheme/Policy and as per the notifications dated 01.02.1978 and 12.05.198, pursuant to the acquisition which was made in the year 1973. The respondent no.2-Krishi University (Dantiwada) has given appointment to the other similarly situated persons by an order dated 03.03.2010, in respect of their acquired lands.
3. However, Mr. D.G.Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that earlier the petitioners have filed Special Civil Application No. 13206 of 2007 and allied matters, against the University for the same relief and on the same grounds, which were withdrawn by the petitioners.
4. Mr.
Chaunan has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V/s. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein, it is observed as under:
"Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme".
5. Mr.
Chauhan further submitted that the present petition is barred by the principle of Res Judicata and the doctrine of estoppel.
6. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be rejected on two grounds. (1) The present petition is hit by the principle of Res-judicata and (2) delay in respect of the the acquisition which was made in the year 1973. So, under the notifications dated 01.02.1978 and 12.05.1984, the petitioners have no legal or statutory right to claim employment in the University after gross delay of 33 years and 27 years respectively de-hors the recruitment rules. The petitioners are abusing the process of court by filing one after another litigations and therefore, the petitioners are estopped from filing such frivolous petition. The petitioners were considered for the employment in the years 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996 and 1997, but they were not found eligible for employment in the University.
7. Apart from that, relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Punit Vidyalaya Primary School Vali Mandal V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in, 1999 (1) GLH 499, the present petition is abuse of the process of the Court and the same is required to be rejected.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition deserves to be dismissed imposing 25,000/-cost to the petitioners for filing bogus litigation like present one. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J] siddharth// Top