Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anita vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 December, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No.25593 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25593 of 2012
Date of Decision: December 20, 2012
Anita
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J(ORAL) The instant writ petition has been filed invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent-authorities to give appointment to the petitioner as Computer Faculty in the light of the offer of appointment dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to letter dated 21st December 2006 (Annxure P-1) issued by the ICT Education Society which was in the nature of an offer letter issued in favour of the petitioner to join the post of Computer Faculty on contractual basis under the Punjab ICT Project. Such appointment was offered on contractual basis for a period of 3 years or till the closure of the aforementioned project whichever was earlier on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.7,000/- per month. Such offer of appointment also stipulated that if the same was acceptable to the petitioner she was to join duties within 7 days from the receipt of such CWP No.25593 of 2012 -2- letter in terms of reporting to the District Education Officer (Secondary Education) of the District concerned.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that such offer letter was duly received by the petitioner and the petitioner had in fact reported to the District Education Officer (Secondary Education) Bhathinda within the stipulated period of 7 days and in spite thereof she was not permitted to join.
Counsel would argue that the action of the respondent- authorities having offered appointment to a particular post be it on contractual basis and therefore not permitting such candidate to join, is clearly arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, having perused pleadings on record, I find that the present writ petition deserves merit dismissal.
Undisputedly the cause of action, if any that accrued to the petitioner immediately upon having not been permitted to join in pursuance to the offer of appointment dated 21.12.2006. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner herself that the offer letter had been duly received and that she had offered to join within the stipulated period of 7 days. There is no explanation forthcoming either in the pleading or at the stage of arguments for the petitioner having chose to remain quiet and having approached this Court after a period of 6 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a number of representations had been submitted as also information had been sought from the respondent-authorities and it is on account of such circumstances that the delay had occurred. Even such submission is without any consequence. It is well settled that repeated representations would not vest in the petitioner a fresh cause of action. The discretion with the writ Court cannot be exercised in favour of a CWP No.25593 of 2012 -3- candidate who has not been vigilant as regards her rights. The present writ petition is highly belated and consequently is dismissed on ground of delay alone.
Dismissed.
20.12.2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) vcgarg JUDGE