In present petition, the petitioner has made serious grievance about the inaction by the respondent authorities and the decision taken by the competent authority in her case of not considering her request for extending the benefit of 5 additional marks in light of the certificates submitted by her. 1.1 The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the order dated 8.2.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.4188 of 2005.
2. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, heavily relied on the certificates produced by the petitioner on record of present petition and on the said order dated 8.2.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.4188 of 2005.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, she had made application in response to the advertisement for the post of Vidhya Sahayak. She also claimed that she applied in the category of sports person since she had participated in the wrestling competition and she fulfilled the conditions as per the policy applicable to the applicants in sports category. It is claimed by the petitioner that as per the applicable rules and policy, sports persons are, subject to compliance of other applicable conditions, entitled to benefit of addition of 5 marks. She has claimed that she had submitted relevant certificates, however, the said certificates were not accepted by the respondent authorities and therefore, her case was not considered. The petitioner has also claimed that a similarly situated candidate in whose case also the respondents had taken similar stand, had approached this Court and had filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No.4188 of 2005. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that after considering the case of the said petitioner, the Court directed the respondents that:-
“4(b) Therefore, it is hereby directed that without disturbing the appointment of the Vidhya Sahayaks already made, the respondent No.2 shall consider the matter for awarding additional 5 marks to the petitioner in view of the decision of the State Government dated 14.6.2005 for granting approval to the Gujarat State Rustling Association and participation by the petitioner for the tournament as per the Certificate annexed, and it shall finalise the matter of preparation of the select list in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month from the receipt of the order of this Court.”
3.1 Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that similar benefit may be granted to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Rajesh M. Chauhan, learned advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr.
Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent No.2, has resisted the petition and submitted that the petition does not deserve to be entertained in view of the inordinate delay. In support of his said submission, he has relied on the decision rendered in case of S.S.Balu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 479].
Mr. Chauhan also relied on the reply affidavit filed by the respondent opposing the petition and submitted that the petitioner was not considered eligible, at the relevant time, in view of the details mentioned in the reply affidavit.
5. It is necessary to note that the selection process, which is subject matter of present petition, relates to 2004.
Almost 8 years have passed since the decision of not accepting the petitioner's candidature was taken by the respondent authorities. Thus, even if the Court considers it appropriate, having regard to the facts of the case, that the petitioner may also be granted similar relief as was granted in case of the petitioner in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.4118 of 2005, then also, it would not be permissible, possible and justified for the Court to do so in view of the inordinate delay, which has occurred in the interregnum.
In the said case, the petitioner had approached the Court immediately, i.e. in 2005, and her case was considered and the Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of that petitioner by awarding additional 5 marks to the petitioner.
However, in present case, the petitioner has filed present petition in 2011, i.e. almost after 7 years since the selection process concluded. Perhaps, by now, the petitioner might have become age barred also.
Therefore, in view of this Court, the petition does not deserve to be entertained on account of inordinate delay. On the said limit ground, the petition is not entertained and is dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc