[2025:RJ-JP:34488] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3406/2017 Priyanka Kumari D/o Shri Sumer Singh, Village and Post Bhainsali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Office, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/08/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed letter/communication dated 02.08.2013 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Jaipur whereby, writ petition filed by the petitioner pursuant to directions given by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12004/2013 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by her non-selection on the post of Constable, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12004/2013, which was disposed of ex parte vide order dated 11.07.2013 directing the [2025:RJ-JP:34488] (2 of 3) [CW-3406/2017] petitioner to make a representation in respect of her grievances before the competent authority. 3. In compliance of order dated 11.07.2013, representation was filed by the petitioner, however, the same has been rejected vide order dated 02.08.2013 ignoring the fact that the cut-off marks of General Category candidate were lesser than OBC candidate. 4. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raises an objection that against rejection of representation of the petitioner vide order dated 02.08.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2017, after a delay of more than three and half years and by that time, the selection process was already over. 5. Hence, under these circumstances, relief as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted to her. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable jurisdiction and cannot be extended in favour of person who was not diligent with regard to his/her rights. 8. In the instant case, admittedly order dated 02.08.2013 has been challenged by the petitioner after a delay of more than three and half years and no plausible reasons have been mentioned in memo of this writ petition for filing the writ petition after a such long and unexplainable delay. [2025:RJ-JP:34488] (3 of 3) [CW-3406/2017] 9. In view of above, no interference is called for. Therefore, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /93