Seema Yadav v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission And ANR.

CWP No.10658 of 2019 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10658 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.07.2019 Seema Yadav

...Petitioner

Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) Petitioner has chosen to rake up issue with following prayer by moving application under Right to Information Act on 25.07.2013 with regard to outcome of result in respect of selection of candidates for Lecturer Sanskrit (School Cadre) in pursuance of advertisement No.1/99:- "Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Lecturer Sanskrit (School Cadre), in pursuance to Advt. No.1/99 under DESM (Gen) category on the basis of result of written examination and interview of petitioner held on 6.12.2004 and /or to get the matter inquired into as respondents have knowingly or purposely supplied wrong information of marks of interview to be included PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.07.29 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.10658 of 2019 (O&M) -2in 122 marks, which is shown in compilation of result dated 5.12.2004 and/or to pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit." Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner having been participated in written examination sought indulgence of this Court vide CWP No.17382 of 2004 wherein by virtue of interim order, was interviewed and vide order dated 29.03.2005 (Annexure P-3), writ petition was disposed off as rendered infructuous. An attempt has been made to highlight conduct of the selection authorities as result was purportedly declared on 6/7.12.2004 whereas petitioner, according to information received under RTI, was called for interview on 6.12.2004. No explanation has come forward for not seeking information for almost 9 years.

Even no concerted effort has been made with regard to destruction of record information received under RTI vis-a-vis advertisement No.1/99. It is matter of record that that petitioner was intimated on 28.04.2005 about his name kept at Sr. No.1 in waiting list. Writ petition is basically an attempt to rake up an issue, which has already become stale and hit by doctrine akin to delay and latches. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 22, 2019 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.07.29 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document