Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Mehar vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 November, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CWP No.17966 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17966 of 2010
Date of decision: 27.11.2012
Ram Mehar ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. A.K. Singal, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
As per the averments made in this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Ad hoc teacher in April 2007 in S.D. (Boys) Senior Secondary School, Panipat and from the date of his appointment as Teacher in the above said School, he was rendering his services as S.S. Master.
As per the further averments, one post of S.S. Master was advertised by respondent Nos.4 and 5. The last date of submission of form was stipulated as 23.7.2009. The petitioner being fully eligible for the said post applied well in time. The interview was to be conducted for the said post on 3.8.2009. On the date fixed i.e. 3.8.2009, the petitioner was duly interviewed.
It is the specific averment of the petitioner that the DEO, Panipat was present during the interview on the said date. However, later on, the respondent-Authorities i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not accept CWP No.17966 of 2010 2 the interview conducted by respondents No.4 and 5 for the post of S.S. Master as no departmental nominee was appointed by the competent Authority and directed the said Management to hold fresh interview. The interview was again held on 12.3.2010 in which respondent No.6 was selected.
The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition raising a grievance that the interview on 12.3.2010 was held illegally as the interview had already taken place on 3.8.2009. Moreover, there was no notice to the petitioner with regard to the subsequent interview and therefore, the result (Annexure P-8) dated 12.3.2010 whereby respondent No.6 was selected, is liable to be set aside.
In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5, a specific averment has been made to the effect that the petitioner had concealed the true facts from the knowledge of this Court as he has made a wrong averment that he did not appear in the interview held on 12.3.2010. According to respondents No.4 and 5, the petitioner appeared in the interview held on 12.3.2010 and even signed the attendance sheet on that date. He was also awarded the marks by the interviewing committee but was not selected due to less meritorious and thus, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
It may be noticed at this stage that except raising grievance with regard to subsequent interview on the ground that he had no proper notice, no other argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the result dated 12.3.2010 wherein respondent No.6 was selected.
It may further be noticed that the fact of participation of the petitioner in interview on 12.3.2010 has not been controverted by filing any CWP No.17966 of 2010 3 replication to the said written statement. Otherwise also, the averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 are based on the record. Further, there is no challenge to the order of the respondents whereby respondents No.4 and 5 were directed by the Director Higher Education to hold a fresh interview.
In view of the aforesaid facts which have come on record, this Court is of the view that the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
November 27, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE