RAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed impugning the action of the official respondents in having appointed private respondent No. 5 to the post of Sanskrit Teacher (Guest Faculty) in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Gangatheri Popran, Karnal. Further prayer is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on such post as Guest Faculty. It is the pleaded case on behalf of the petitioner that he had applied for the post of Sanskrit Guest Teacher with respondent No. 4 in the year 2005. It was only upon information having sought under the

(2.) PROVISIONS of Right to Information Act in the year 2009 that the petitioner became aware that respondent No. 5 namely Krishan s/o Om Parkash had been appointed as Sanskrit Teacher (Guest Faculty). Counsel for the petitioner would refer to the document appended as Annexure P-2 alongwith the petition i.e. the merit position of the Sanskrit Teachers in relation to which the petitioner had also submitted his application. In the light of such merit position, it becomes apparent that seven candidates had applied against one solitary post of Sanskrit Teacher (Guest Faculty) and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 2 in the order of merit having secured 130.65 marks. The name of respondent No. 5 i.e. Krishan appears at Sr. No. 5 having secured 123.43 marks. Accordingly, the case set out on behalf of the petitioner is that a candidate, who was less meritorious had been selected and appointed in clear derogation of the rights of the petitioner and such action is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. A joint written statement has been filed on behalf of the official respondents, wherein the factual position of seven candidates having applied for one post of Sanskrit Teacher (Guest Faculty) in the school in question as also the merit position reflected in Annexure P-2 has not been disputed. The stand taken on behalf of the State is that the merit list of the selected candidates from Sr. Nos. 1 to 7 was displayed on the notice board of the school on 21.12.2005. It has further been stated that up to 19.01.2006, the candidates at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4 in the

(3.) BEING higher in order of merit. On the other hand, the specific stand taken on behalf of the State is that the merit list of the selected candidates had been displayed on the notice board of the school on 21.12.2005 and since the candidates higher in order of merit did not come forth to join, accordingly, the post had been offered to respondent No. 5. Such factual dispute cannot be gone into and resolved in the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in having preferred the instant writ petition in the year 2010. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for the post in the year 2005. He chose to remain silent thereafter for a considerable length of time. He cannot be permitted to gain any impetus from the fact that certain information had been sought for and received in the year 2009. It cannot be believed that an applicant for a post would remain quiet and sit over the matter for a period of more than 4 years. Even though, there is no period of limitation prescribed for the Courts to exercise their power under Article 226, yet it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise such extraordinary powers under Article 226 in a case where a person approaches to put forward a stale claim. (ii) A glaring fact that cannot be lost sight of is that a regular appointee has joined on the post of Sanskrit Teacher in the school in question in the year 2009. Such factual assertion has been made in the