ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court claiming appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science for which advertisement was issued in the year 2005 and after selection, appointments were made in the year 2007 on the ground that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 obtained equal marks i.e. 31 but respondent No. 3 was placed at Sr. No. 29 of the select list whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 30 of the select list which, according to the petitioner, was incorrect as the petitioner was older in age and, therefore, should have been placed at Sr. No. 29 whereas respondent No. 3 should have been placed at Sr. No. 30 of the select list. Explanation put forth for approaching this Court after an inordinate delay of more than four years is that the information was sought by one of the contenders, namely, Amit Khirbat in the year 2007 and on the basis of the said information, he has, in the year 2011, come to know that he was entitled to be placed at Sr. No. 29 of the select list and had he been put on Sr. No. 29 of the select list, he would have been appointed prior to respondent No. 3. On this basis, it has been contended that the petitioner is entitled to appointment to the said post. Further contention is that in the year 2007, when the appointments took place, there were vacant posts available, against which the petitioner could be adjusted. Even today, posts are lying vacant and, therefore, petitioner deserves to be given appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science. Counsel for the petitioner has argued the case on these lines.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.

(3.) As is apparent from the above facts, which have been mentioned, petitioner has been sleeping over his rights. Never ever from the date of selection was he interested in knowing the status or his position in selection. This is apparent from the facts stated by him in the petition that the information was never sought by him but was sought by one Amit Khirbat. That information was also supplied in the year 2007, which has now been made the basis for claiming appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science. It has been stated that he has now come to know in the year 2011 that he was entitled to be placed at Sr. No. 29 whereas respondent No. 3 was to be placed at Sr. No. 30 as he was younger in age to the petitioner.