[2025:RJ-JP:46934-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1207/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12710/2008 Umesh Chand S/o Shri Laxman Lal Rebari, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Shiv Nagar Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Collector, Jhalawar. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar (Raj.) 4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.) 5. Bheem Raj S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, R/o Village Sarola Kalan, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Garssa For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 20/11/2025 (PER:- HON’BLE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J) This special appeal, reported to be time barred by 149 days, is accompanied with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in its filing. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard the counsel for the petitioner on merits. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground that, owing to the efflux of time, the lis no longer survived, the selection process having been [2025:RJ-JP:46934-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1207/2025] completed in the year 2008. The writ petition had been instituted challenging the selection of respondent No.5 to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, in Panchayat Samiti Khanpur, pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.06.2008 issued by the District Collector and District Program Coordinator, Jhalawar. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 secured appointment by misrepresenting his place of residence, claiming to belong to resident of Chandalia, Gram Panchayat Shiv Nagar Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Khanpur, whereas he was, in fact, a resident of village Sarola Kalan. It is further averred that despite several representations made by the petitioner, no action was taken by the authorities. The reply filed by the State Government reflects that the respondent was having ancestral residential house and agricultural land village Chandalia, and bonafide resident certificate was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khanpur and based upon the same, the appointment was given to the respondent No.5. Upon the representation being filed by the petitioner before the CEO, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar, the SDO was directed to conduct an inquiry and after the inquiry, it was found that the petitioner was earlier resident of village Chandalia and was a bonafide resident. The result of the inquiry was also communicated to the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 was possessing higher qualification than the petitioner, and he was placed at serial no 1 in the list. Hence, no error was found in the appointment given to the respondent No.5. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality in the process of appointment, particularly when the authorities have already acted upon his representation and conducted the requisite [2025:RJ-JP:46934-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1207/2025] inquiry. Respondent No.5, being more qualified and having secured the first position in the merit list, was rightly appointed. The recruitment pertains to the year 2008, and the entire selection process stood concluded long ago. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that, due to the passage of time, nothing survived in the lis for adjudication. The Court noted that the selection process in question had been concluded long ago and appointments had already been made. In doing so, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which consistently hold that once a selection process has attained finality and the selected candidates have been appointed, no effective or meaningful relief can be granted. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Even on merits, the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant stands dismissed as being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /70