Anita Rani v. State Of Haryana & ORS.
CWP No.17164 of 1996 -1- 2024:PHHC:006669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 208 ***** CWP No.17164 of 1996 Date of Decision : 18.1.2024 Anita Rani ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: None for the petitioner Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana --- TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL): This petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as S.S. Mistress from the date candidate lower in merit was appointed, with all consequential benefits. 2.
As per facts apparent on record, the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange, and her name was sponsored from there for interview for the post of S.S. Mistress. She was selected for appointment, and an intimation to that effect was also given to the Employment Exchange vide letter dated 27.1.1996, leading to her name being struck of from there. 3.
A grievance has been raised that the letter of appointment was not received by the petitioner due to the respondent's fault, resultantly she could not join. 4.
Learned State counsel points out that on having been selected, Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.25 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.17164 of 1996 -2- 2024:PHHC:006669 the petitioner alongwith other selected candidates, was duly intimated by sending the letter of appointment on her given address under postal certificate (UPC), as is apparent from Annexure R-1. All other selected candidates joined the post within the stipulated time of fifteen days. The petitioner failed to join and approached the respondents for the purpose much later after about nine months. Her request was rightly declined as she had failed to accept the offer of appointment on her own. He also points out that the list of selected candidates was pasted on the notice board of the District Education Officer, Rohtak, which is just a kilometer away from the petitioner's house. On this account also, it cannot be believed that she was not aware of her selection and the offer of appointment. In any case, at this stage the claim cannot be entertained. 5.
These facts are not in dispute. Accordingly, the petitioner has no right to seek appointment. 6.
Dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 18.1.2024 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2024.01.25 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document