SUDESH BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sudesh Bala, through present petition filed by her under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit her to the Teachers Training Course (State Scheme).

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioner applied for Teachers Training Course (State Scheme) and last date for submission of the applications was September 30, 1991. The applications had to be made to the Principal, Industrial Training Institute (Women Wing), Rohtak and the date of interview was fixed as October 5, 1991. The interview contained no marks and was only a formality as the admission had to be granted on the basis of academic qualifications. The case of the petitioner is that on October 5, 1991 a list was displayed and there were only 31 seats and she was shown at Serial No. 8 On October 5, 1991, however, no interview was held as all the Educational Institutions including the Industrial Training Institute, Rohtak was closed by the orders of Deputy Commissioner taking into consideration the prevalent law and order situation upto October 17, 1991. The case of the petitioner further is that even though there were no marks for interview but when she alongwith her relative had gone for the said purpose on October 5, 1991 to the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Rohtak, she came to know that all the Institutions have been closed upto October 17, 1991 and therefore, was asked to come on October 18, 1991. On the date aforesaid, when she approached the Principal-respondent No. 3, she was informed that the candidates have already been admitted on October 16, 1991. The absence of petitioner became a ground for the respondents to admit some one else in preference to her. A representation was made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak wherein the action of the respondents was termed to be arbitrary. It was further represented that the persons, lower in merit, had been admitted. It is on the abovesaid facts that petitioner has sought the relief, as indicated above.

(3.) The cause of the petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been pleaded that the date of interview was changed by issuing a public notice in the Dainik Tribune and India Express which was so published on October 7, 1991 and inasmuch as the petitioner did not attend the interview on the adjourned date, she was rightly ignored.