MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks writ in the nature of mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of Hindi Teacher, being in the top of the merit and to decide the legal notice dated 15.12.2013 (Annexure P-15).

(2.) It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is a recognized Government Aided School which is run by its managing committee and governed by the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 amended upto 2007. The said respondent had advertised number of posts for the teachers as per the requirement which was decided in the resolution dated 12.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) and necessary permission was sought on 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) from respondent No.2 for filling up 2 vacant posts of Social Studies Master and one post of Hindi Teacher, which had fallen vacant in the school. Respondent No.2 granted the permission on 09.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) on various terms and conditions which also included that one member of the Selection Committee would be its representative and the necessary request should reach the Directorate, through the concerned District Education Officer. Accordingly, the posts had been duly advertised on 16.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) and large number of candidates had applied and interviews were fixed for the post of teachers on 05.04.2010. Request dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) was sent to respondent No.2, to send its representative on the said dates, including 06.04.2010 when interview was fixed for the post of Social Studies Master also. Similar request was also forwarded by respondent No.3-District Education Officer, Rewari on 09.03.2010 (Annexure P-6). Accordingly, duly constituted Committee which included respondent No.3, fixed a criteria (Annexure P-7) for the selection of the Hindi Teachers, which was to be done on 05.04.2010.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he duly participated in the selection process and the Committee had found him eligible out of the 74 applicants and recommended his name as he had got maximum marks, as per the merit-list (Annexure P-8). Respondent No.2 had written a letter on 31.05.2010 to respondent No.3, to complete the selection process. Similarly, letter was written on 13.08.2010, where reference was also made to CWP-10608-2010 titled Geeta Batra Vs. State of Haryana & others. On 13.08.2010 (Annexure P-11), respondent No.5-School had also written to respondent No.2 that respondent No.3 had not signed the merit-list and therefore, the case had not been sent to its office for consideration and on account of the non-signing of the case of all the applicants, the school sent the case directly to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, thereafter, on 16.08.2010 (Annexure P-12) issued fresh instructions to respondent No.3, to comply with the earlier directions for filling up the vacant posts, keeping in view the pendency of Geeta Batra's case (supra). It is the case of the petitioner that he visited to the office of the respondent No.3 and the school management number of times that he having got the maximum marks in the merit-list, was not being given appointment and resultantly, he had filed representation dated 20.01.2011 and 11.03.2012. It is, in such circumstances, he served a legal notice dated 15.12.2013 (Annexure P-15) and thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed.