NIGHAT PARVEEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D. B. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the material on record. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of this writ petition finally.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 Union Public Service Commission wanted to recruit and nil in 46 posts of Principals in Government Senior Secondary Schools in Delhi. Out of these -16 posts, 20 posts were reserved for female candidates. Petitioner had applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement issued by tifc respondent No. 2. Thereafter, she had received a letter for interview before the Interview Board on 6-9-1994. It is her claim that in pursuance of the said letter issued by respondent Nos. 2 & 3, viz. Union Public Service Commission and the Chairman of Union Public Service Commission respectively, she went for the said interview and her name was shown 1148 HCD/96-2 A at serial No. 17. It is her further claim that when her turn came she was not actually interviewed and the candidates next to her were interviewed. She waited till late evening but nobody gave her any information as to why she was not interviewed. It is also claimed that she was possessing all the necessary qualifications for holding the said post of Principal and she had given all the details of her qualifications and experience in her application and only. on finding that she was suitable she was called for the said interview.

(3.) As nobody was giving any reason as to why she was not inter viewed on that date she went to collect the interview letter which was issued to her but the concerned official refused to return the letter to her. Then she gave a letter to the Secretary, of respondent No. 2 on the same date 6-9-94 metioning therein that she was not allowed to appear for the said interview though she was present in the office and, therefore, she was making a request to look into the matter immediately and to permit her to appear for the interview. But in spite of the sand; she was not interviewed. Thus, she has been denied the right to get the. said post and selection made by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is arbitrary and illegal. She, therefore, prayed for issuing a direction to the re.",pond.ents to consider her for the post of Principal to be appointed in the Government Senior Secondary School and to prevent the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from implementing the results of the interview held on 6-9-1994.