CHANCHAL BALA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Brief Holder, appearing for the respondents, has no objection if IA No. 3452 of 2015 is allowed and writ petition is heard today itself. Therefore, I.A. No. 3452 of 2015 is allowed. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 15th June, 2015, whereby candidature and selection of the petitioner to be appointed as an Advocate (Female) in the matters of sexual harassment cases against children and female was cancelled with the stipulation that fresh names be called from District Legal Services Authority wherein petitioner may also apply afresh.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 20th December, 2013, penal was called from District Legal Services Authority, Udham Singh Nagar for selection of Senior Advocate (Female) to give legal advise and to do pairvi in sexual harassment cases against female and children; District Legal Services Authority, Udham Singh Nagar was pleased to recommend the sole name of the petitioner; petitioner moved an application on 11.07.2014 under Right to Information Act seeking information about the status of the selection process; vide information dated 24.07.2014, annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, petitioner was informed that she was although selected, however, meanwhile, compliant was received against her, therefore, no appointment letter was issued either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of any other person; petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 2593 of 2014 (M/S), Chanchal Bala Vs. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and others, however, same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2014 having observed that there is no legal right in favour of the petitioner to be appointed as Senior Advocate (Female); feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred Special Appeal No. 652 of 2014 before the Division Bench of this Court; learned Addl. Advocate General has made statement before the Division Bench, hearing the Special Appeal No. 652 of 2014 that respondents shall take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law; Special Appeal No. 652 of 2014 was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court in the light of statements made by learned Addl. Advocate General, vide order dated 17.04.2014; thereafter, matter was considered and it was opined that since sole name of the petitioner was received from the District Legal Services Authority, therefore, fresh names / penal be called wherein petitioner may also apply and after considering the name / penal forwarded by the District Legal Services Authority, fresh selection shall be made; consequently, candidature of the petitioner was rejected; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since petitioner has been selected being the sole candidate, therefore, she has every right to be appointed on the post of Senior Advocate (Female). I am afraid, argument so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner does not stand in the scrutiny of law for the simple reason that mere selection does not create any right in favour of the candidate. Moreover, names were called for the appointment of Senior Advocate (Female) purely on contract basis and before decision could be communicated to the petitioner, same was cancelled, therefore, acceptance was not communicated to the petitioner. Acceptance, before being communicated to the other side, can be withdrawn and in the event of withdrawal of the acceptance before the communication, same shall be nullity in view of Section 5 of Indian Contract Act. Therefore, petitioner has absolutely no right to seek mandamus to issue appointment letter in her favour.