NAHEED CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of appointment letter to the post of Assistant Registrar with the respondent no. 2/jamia Hamdard (Hamdard University) on the ground that the name of the petitioner was recommended on 18. 12. 2008 and approved by the competent authority for such an appointment. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of notification/advertisement No. 11/2008 dated 22/23. 4. 2008 on the basis of which the said post of Assistant Registrar was re-advertised by respondent no. 2 for the purpose being filled up.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner had done her Graduation in 1989 and post Graduation in 1991 from Sultanpur (Awadh University) UP. It is stated by the petitioner that she has been teaching in different schools and colleges in UP and schools in delhi as English Teacher/lecturer and at present she is working at Senior supervisor with M/s HCL Technology NOIDA. It is alleged that in the month of october, 2007, the respondent no. 2 had advertised two posts of Assistant registrar to be filled in by direct recruitment. Since the petitioner was desirous of seeking appointment to the said post, she applied as she was fulfilling the eligibility criteria. On 4th December, 2007, an intimation was sent to the petitioner for appearing before the Selection Committee on 18th december, 2007 in the office of Vice Chancellor, Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard university ). She was also directed to produce her original as well as the attested copies of the certificates.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the interview held on 4. 12. 2007, the said Selection Committee recommended her name at serial No. 2 while as the name of one Mrs. R. Naaz was kept at serial No. 1 and recommended for the post of Assistant Registrar. The aforesaid minutes of the Selection committee are alleged to have been approved by the competent authority but as he did not receive any letter of appointment till the month of April, she made a representation and her husband kept on going to the office of respondent no. 2 in order to find out as to why the letter of appointment had not been issued to the petitioner. It is alleged that despite the representation having been made on 22/23. 4. 2008, the respondent no. 2 instead of issuing the letter of appointment to the petitioner had chosen to advertise the second post of Assistant Registrar again vide advertisement no. 11/2008 on 22/23. 4. 2008.