SANTRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present Review application, at the instance of the applicant (petitioner in CWP No.8379 of 1996), is for review of the order dated 06.11.2009, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 2788 days, in filing the same.

(2.) As per the averments, in pursuance to the advertisement bearing No.1/95 dated 22.01.1995 (Annexure P-9), 4 posts of Lecturers in Sanskrit of General Category for female, were advertised, but there was no post reserved for Backward Class Category (BC). The applicant/petitioner, being aspirant and belonging to Backward Class, submitted an application and in lieu thereof, received interview letter dated 22.09.1995 (Annexure P1 of 8 8) bearing Roll No.398 to appear on 12.10.1995. Before the date of interview, another advertisement bearing No.7/95 dated 10.10.1995 (Annexure P-10) for filling up 15 posts of Lecturers of Sanskrit were advertised, out of which 3 posts were reserved for Backward Class (Female Category) with a stipulation that the persons, who had already applied in pursuance to the first advertisement, need not apply again.

(3.) Since there was no post reserved for Backward Class Category in pursuance to the first advertisement, the applicant was in a quandary and as an abundant precaution, also submitted an application dated 19.10.1995 (Annexure P-11) and alleged to have received a communication dated 16.11.1995 (Annexure P-13) by assigning Roll No.655. She was directed to bring certificate of her category on the date of the interview as she had already appeared in the first interview. The second interview was to be held on 02.12.1995. However, the Selection Committee refused to interview the applicant on the premise that she was, already interviewed, in the first advertisement and was made to believe that there was a common selection, as the selection process was outcome of clubbing of the advertisements. On 18.03.1996 (Annexure P-14), the result was declared, but the applicant's Roll number was not included. On ascertaining the particulars of the result, it transpired that for Backward Class Category, cut off marks were 66 marks, whereas for General Category, 67 marks, whereas the applicant/review petitioner against Roll No.398, obtained 66 marks out of 100 marks and since the cut off marks for Backward Class Category was 66, she was liable to be offered appointment.