1994 (9) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... denied. Aggrieved by the denial, he preferred SBCWP No. 3875 of 1992. By judgment dated 6-8-1992, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan directed consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in accordance with the proviso to Rule 5 of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of the Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The consideration was directed to be effected within six months from the date of the judgment. Assailing the correctness of this judgment, Special Appeal No. 481 of 1993 was filed by the appellant. That was dismissed on the ground of delay of 112 days. Thus, the present civil appeal. 4. Two alternate contentions are rai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has no case whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the very ruling on which reliance is sought to be placed by the appellant, supports the respondent. This Court pointed out that only a direction should be issued by the High Court for consideration and not a direction to appoint. That is precisely what has been done by the learned Single Judge. It is open to the State to consider as per the direction and come to a conclusion one way or other. Instead it had resorted to a belated appeal. It should not be encouraged. 7.This is a case in which the special appeal to the Division Bench against the judgment of the Single Judge was delayed by 11 2 days. We find that the delay had been caused on account of administrative exigencies. The failure to cond....