PARAMJEET Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in the present petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join on the post of Special Teacher (Visually Impaired) in compliance with appointment letter dated 04.01.2011 under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was issued the appointment letter dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure P-1). He was asked to join by 18.01.2011 after getting his medical fitness certificate. Immediately thereafter he approached the Medical Officer who found that he himself was visually impaired (which fact had already been disclosed in his application). On the strength of that medical certificate he approached the respondent No. 4 who sought a clarification from the respondent No. 2 as to whether he should be appointed to teach visually impaired students vide letter dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure P-2). It is not disputed that during this interregnum another person who was completely blind was permitted to join on the similar post for teaching visually impaired students. As regards the letter (Annexure P-2) correspondence continued between the respondent's No. 2 and 4 and ultimately he was asked to again appear for a medical test and by medical certificate dated 01.07.2011 (Annexure R-2) the medical officer certified him to be not disqualified for employment. When the petitioner again approached the respondents for permitting him to join his request was rejected on the ground that too much time had lapsed and he did not move an application for extension of joining time before the date fixed therefore.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once his case was before the respondents as early as 12.01.2011 and the matter was being discussed in the office there was really no occasion for the petitioner to have moved an application for extension of joining time and in these circumstances the delay in getting the medical clearance or the delay in filing an application for extension of joining time can not have the affect of disentitling the petitioner from being permitted to join.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 has argued that despite the fact U at the issue regarding the condition of the petitioner was alive in the office it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have moved an application for extension of joining erne.