PRIYANKA CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for regularization on the post of Administrative Officer. Subsequently, the amendment was made in the petition and the advertisement dated 03-09-2011, whereby the post of Administrative Officer was advertised, is also called in question.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

(3.) Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to document Annexure P-5, submits that the finding of Selection Committee is not reproduced in toto in the said letter written by Director which resulted into miscarriage of justice. He submits that only first portion of the recommendation of the Selection Committee is reproduced in the said letter and second portion was not. The Selection Committee 's opinion that the petitioner's case would be considered for regularization on satisfactory performance, has not been communicated to the higher authorities. Had it been done, the petitioner would have been considered for regularization. By placing reliance on other documents filed along-with rejoinder, it is stated that the respondents even regularized those persons, who were not recruited in accordance with law but left out the petitioner for no justifiable reason.