URMIL Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal has erred in dismissing the O.A.No.1999/2010 filed by the petitioner herein by their order dated 9th August, 2011, on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that the petitioner had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 27th March, 2009 and after the information was made available on 15th June, 2010, she had filed the original application before the tribunal on 21 st June, 2010. It is further submitted that the tribunal had decided the question what is meant by the term `elective subject' vide their decision dated 15th September, 2008 in O.A.No.1054/2008 and, therefore, there was no delay and the petitioner had approached the tribunal within a reasonable period.

(2.) THE petitioner had appeared for selection as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Hindi as an OBC candidate. She qualified in the Part-I examination and appeared in the Part-II examination on 2nd September, 2007, but she was not successful in the results declared on 29th March, 2008.

(3.) THE petitioner has submitted that her marks and reason for non- selection was informed to her on 15th June, 2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and immediately thereafter she approached the tribunal. We do not think that the application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 27th March, 2009 can give or furnish a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. It may be noticed here that the application under Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed nearly one year after the results were declared and the Act was enforced in 2005. That apart, it is noticed that the petitioner did not make the persons selected and appointed as TGT and who have been working for last three years, as parties to the OA.