PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for appointment as a Maths Master in response to an advertisement issued in the 'Daily Tribune' dated 14.11.1999. He was found meritorious enough in the written test conducted by the respondents so as to be invited for an interview. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that despite the fact that the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.4 in the reserved category of Backward Class (A) candidates, the petitioner has not been favoured with an offer of appointment despite the fact, that a large number of vacancies out of the total of 667 posts advertised, are still available.

(2.) In order to substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16967 of 2004 decided on 16.9.2005, wherein, a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners (in the said case) for appointment against the same posts as in the present case.

(3.) Having examined the matter in its totality, we are of the view, that it would not be fair at this juncture to require the respondents to fill up the vacancies in respect of which the selection process culminated in 2002 i.e. four years before the filing of the instant writ petition. In the interregnum, a large number of other candidates must have acquired eligibility for the same posts and have an equal right as the petitioner, to compete for the same.