Punjab-Haryana High Court
Loveleen Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 November, 2014
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaishree Thakur
LPA No. 1781 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
LPA No. 1781 of 2014
Date of decision : 3.11.2014
Loveleen Kaur .........Appellant
v.
The State of Punjab and others ......Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jaishree Thakur
Present : Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant
---
Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral)
The present letters patent appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.9.2014 whereby the claim of the appellant for appointment to the post of Punjabi Mistress was rejected being remained unsuccessful.
The appellant applied in response to a public notice published in the news papers on 23.9.2009, inviting applications for 1200 posts in different subjects. A combined merit list was prepared in January 2010 wherein the name of the appellant was reflected at Serial No. 333 having secured 59.7767 marks. The candidates who were in the zone of consideration to the merit list, were invited for counseling in the month of January 2010 but the petitioner was not called for counseling as she was not within the zone of consideration. Subsequently, another public notice was issued for convening a second counseling on 28.6.2011. The candidates were called from 6th July 2011 to 11.7.2011. The candidates, for the post for ASHWANI KUMAR 2014.11.05 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 LPA No. 1781 of 2014 which the appellant was an aspirant, were called for counseling on 7.7.2011. The appellant did not appear before the authority conducting the counseling, on 7.7.2011. But on 9.7.2011, she submitted a representation before the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Such representation of the appellant was not entertained. Thereafter, she filed a writ petition and in pursuance of the direction issued, the impugned order has been passed declining the claim of the appellant for appointment having failed to appear for the counseling.
The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that once counseling was held, in respect of giving opportunity to the candidate who did not appear in the first counseling, another opportunity should have been given to all those candidates who have failed to appear on 7.7.2011 in the counseling. The declining of an opportunity to a participant in the counseling again, is said to be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
We find that the appellant cannot claim any direction for further counseling having failed to appear for the counseling on 7.7.2011. In response to a public notice, many candidates, including some of juniors to the appellant, have appeared for counseling. Once the appellant has failed to appear on a specific date, no grievance can be entertained so as to direct the respondent to hold another counseling. Learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the order passed by the respondents declining the representation of the petitioner.
Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that if in future it is decided to hold counseling again, the appellant should be called for counseling.
ASHWANI KUMAR 2014.11.05 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 LPA No. 1781 of 2014
We do not find that any such direction can be given. The publication to conduct counseling was done through a public notice. The second counseling was conducted in the year 2011 i.e. more than 3 years earlier. The selection process once concluded, cannot be kept pending till eternity so as to confer right on the applicants for appointment. However, as and when any fresh advertisement seeking appointment is issued, it shall be open to the appellant to apply in accordance with law.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) Judge (Jaishree Thakur) Judge 3.11.2014 Ashwani ASHWANI KUMAR 2014.11.05 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3