AJAY WALIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A poor hapless lady, Miss Ajay Walia, petitioner herein is loitering around for over about a decade and half to get a petty post of Sub Divisional Clerk and has knocked at the doors of this Court after aimlessly and obviously un-successfully trying her luck in the corridors of Political Power of the State. Her case to obtain the job of Sub Divisional Clerk (for short SDC), in view of this Court, is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Civil appeal No. 3693 of 1990 (Suresh Kumar Khanna v. Subordinate Services Selection Board and others) decided on July 19, 1990. This Court made all out efforts to convince the State counsel, who appeared from time to time as also the Joint Secretary Dhanpat Singh, who appeared in persons in pursuance of the orders passed by us to that effect as also the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana that the petitioner should be accommodated in view of decision of the Supreme Court in a similar matter so that the petitioner is accommodated as early as possible but like efforts of the petitioner made to various political personalities from time to time, our efforts have also proved abortive.

(2.) The circumstances under which the petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of mandamus ordering the respondents to issue her appointment letter as SDC in the department of Irrigation, Government of Haryana, reveal that the petitioner, after fulfilling all the qualifications, was selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, respondent No. 3 herein, as S.D.C. Her name was recommended by the Board for the post of SDC vide memo dated November 9, 1982 to the Superintending Engineer, Hathni Kund Barrage Circle, Yamuna Nagar. In order of merit, she was at No. 10 to be appointed as S.D.C. Till such time she came before this Court and filed the present writ petition, she had not been intimated any lapse on her part nor any reason was communicated to her as to why she could not be appointed. Before, however, she came complaining about inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing her, she was involved in a long drawn correspondence with the State. Her father received a copy of letter dated August 5, 1983 from the then Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal addressed to Ch. Sultan Singh, President, Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee mentioning therein that the representation of petitioner was being looked into by the Chief Minister for appointing her as SDC. The verbatim language is "I am having it looked into for necessary action." Father of the petitioner received yet another letter dated March 10, 1987 written by Private Secretary to the Chief Minister which was addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana. The same was for appraisal of the factual position for appointment of the petitioner to the post of SDC. Prior thereto, the Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal had written a letter to Ch. Sultan Singh, M.P. President of the Haryana Pradesh Congress I Committee, Chandigarh, with a copy to the father of petitioner regarding her appointment wherein he had written that he was asking the concerned department to have the matter looked into for necessary action. In the year 1986, the then Chief Minister, Ch. Bansi Lal, vide letter dated December 11, 1986 addressed to Ch. Harpal Singh, President, Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee, with a copy to the father of petitioner, had mentioned that he was asking the concerned quarters to apprise him of the facts of the case urgently. In 1992 Ch. Dharampal Singh Malik, M.P., President, Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee had written a letter to the Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal with a copy to the father of the petitioner, for looking into the matter of appointment of the petitioner and for imparting justice explaining the whole position of her case. Copies of letters, referred to above, have been annexed with the writ petition as Annexures P-3 to P-7, perusal whereof shows that at no given stage, petitioner was declined appointment on the post of S.D.C. On the other hand, she was always assured that the matter was being looked into. Letters also clearly demonstrate that either the petitioner or her father were constantly and repeatedly approaching the Government for appointment of the petitioner. The positive case of the petitioner is that she and her father had addressed scores of letters/representations demanding justice but there was no need of burdening the petition by putting the same, on records as letters Annexure P-3 to P-7 would clearly reveal that at no given stage petitioner was declined the relief asked for by her through present petition.

(3.) On the strength of the facts, as have been mentioned above, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the respondents were duty bound to appoint the petitioner and with a view to support his aforesaid contention, he squarely relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, reference where of has been given above, as also that juniors to the petitioner, meaning thereby those who were below in merit than the petitioner, have since already been appointed.