ANU MOHELA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 23, 2004, National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') advertised one post of Junior Stenographer carrying the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000. Pursuant thereto, the respondent undertook the selection process which included holding of a written test, skill test and interview. A panel of two candidates was prepared, one of whom, Ijju Sumant was placed at No. 1 while the other Anu Mohela (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') at No. 2. Consequent to the selection, Ijju Sumant joined the service on February 4, 2005. However, three months thereafter on May 16, 2005, he resigned. Upon his resignation, on June 23, 2005, the respondent sent an e-mail message to the petitioner requesting her to visit its office on June 24, 2005. As desired, she went to the office and upon her visit she was asked to join as Junior Stenographer (English) with effect from June 29, 2005 which she did and continued to work till November 30, 2005. Thereafter, her services were discontinued. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, she has preferred the present writ petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, after Ijju Sumant resigned from the post, she had a legitimate claim to be appointed against the vacancy caused by his resignation being Number 2 on the panel. She has alleged that though she was asked to work on the post but she was not given any appointment letter and when she requested for issuance of the same, the respondent without assigning any reason disengaged her w.e.f. December 1, 2005. She has further alleged that ignoring her claim to the post, the respondent is proposing to fill up the same from a departmental candidate. Therefore, she has prayed for a writ of mandamus in the nature of a direction to the respondent to issue appointment letter to her on the basis of selection made pursuant to the advertisement published in the Employment News of June, 2004 and has further prayed for a direction restraining the respondent from filling up the post from a departmental candidate.

(3.) The facts as stated by the petitioner have not been disputed by the respondent. What has been disputed is the claim of the petitioner that upon resignation of Ijju Sumant, she was entitled to be appointed to the post on regular basis.