[2025:RJ-JP:32480-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 574/2025 Dr. (Mrs) Preeti Mathur W/o Shri Purshottam Mathur, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Plot No.95, Prem Kunj Shrij Nagar, Durgapura,jaipur. (Raj). ----Appellant Versus 1. The University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, Jaipur. 2. The Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Piyush Pani Mathur. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 19/08/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3931/2002 whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that due to the wrongful rejection of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Music, the petitioner approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4272/1996. This petition was decided by the Court on 11.10.1996, directing the respondents-University to reconsider the petitioner’s case for appointment to the said post. In compliance with the said judgment, the respondents- University reconsidered the petitioner’s case. However, the petitioner was informed by the respondents vide their letter dated [2025:RJ-JP:32480-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-574/2025] 12.10.1998, that her candidature had been rejected by the Committee. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 12.10.1998, the petitioner again approached before this Court by filing of S.B Civil Writ Petition No.3931/2002 which was dismissed by this Court on 05.02.2025. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that after rejection of the appellant’s candidature by the respondents vide their letter dated 12.10.1998, the appellant-petitioner submitted multiple representations to the respondents-University seeking reconsideration of her case. However, when the respondents- University did not reconsider her case in accordance with the provisions of law, she was compelled to file a writ petition before this Court again. The learned Single Judge, however, overlooked the legal issues involved in this matter. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. After perusing the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we are in complete agreement with the observations made in para Nos.9 &10, which are as follows:- “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 [2025:RJ-JP:32480-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-574/2025] 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.” We are of the view that the appellant-petitioner cannot take advantage of her own wrong by merely sitting idle and not seeking the appropriate remedy before a Court of Law and by submitting representation to the respondents-University will not help the appellant-petitioner in condoning the delay in filing the writ petition. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/58