[2025:RJ-JP:5184] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3931/2002 Dr Mrs Preeti Mathur, w/o Shri Purushottam Mathur, aged about 31 years, R/o plot No.95 prem kunj. Shreeji Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The University Of Rajasthan through its Registrar, Jaipur 2. The Registrar University of Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3009/2002 Dr Mrs Sangeeta Gokte aged about 35 years plot no. 43, Shalimar Bagh, Near Hirapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The University Of Raj through its Registrar, Jaipur 2. The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishan Sharma Mr. Ashish Kabra for Mr. Ashwinee Kumar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anubhav Aggarwal Mr. M.K Dhakad for Mr. P.S Tomar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 05/02/2025 1. The present petitions are filed assailing the impugned order dated 12.10.1998. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have not complied with the directions stated in the [2025:RJ-JP:5184] (2 of 3) [CW-3931/2002] judgment dated 11.10.1996 passed in SBCWP No. 4209/1996, titled as Dr. D. K. Sharma & Ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan and another. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners have applied for the post of Lecturer-Music (Instrumental), however, despite the directions passed in the above cited judgment, the petitioners were not given appointment. Thereafter, petitioners made a representation to the concerned authority for the appointment pursuant to the directions of the High Court and have also filed contempt petitions qua non-compliance, resultant to which registrar of the University informed the petitioners qua consideration of their application by the committee constituted to examine the said applications, whereby the committee did not find the petitioners eligible for appointment in the University under Ordinance 141(d). 4. Furthermore, it is submitted that impugned order is non speaking, even the operative portion which has caused prejudiced to the petitioners is handwritten. 5. Lastly, it is submitted that rejection of the petitioner’s candidature by applying Ordinance 141(d) is arbitrary and not tenable as the said Ordinance is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the instant petitions are hit by the principles of delay and laches. 7. It is further submitted that not only for filing the petitions after a lapse of approximately 4 years the cause of action has lost its significance but also for the reason that no interim protection/ [2025:RJ-JP:5184] (3 of 3) [CW-3931/2002] order is operational during the tenure of the petition, therefore delay in seeking relief after a lapse of approx. 27 years from passing of the impugned order is deemed unreasonable and inordinate, and as such, the claim of petitioners is rendered barred by delay and laches. Resultantly, the present petition is rendered as infructuous. 8. Heard and considered. 9. Considering the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, upon a perusal of the records, this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the present petition for the following reasons:- 9.1. That learned counsel for the petitioner has provided no reasonable justification for challenging the impugned order dated 12.10.1998 in the year 2002, therefore, the present petitions are hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. 9.2. That the instant matter is argued after approximately a period of 27 years and during the currency of the litigation, fresh recruitments are carried out after due public notifications. 10. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petitions on the ground of delay and laches. 11. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. 12. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Diksha Mishra/12-13