MAMTA GOEL Vs. SEEMA BISHT & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 6.8.1997, one post of Computer Assistant was notified to be filled up by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, for which names were requisitioned from the Regional Employment Exchange Officer, Shimla. On 19.8.1997, names of twenty eligible candidates were sponsored in accordance with the single chance rotation norms. On 23.8.1997 candidates were interviewed. Same day, the Selection Committee declared the result and Mamta Goel (appellant herein) who was found most meritorious and suitable, was issued letter of appointment.

(2.) It is this letter of appointment dated 23.8.1997 (Annexure A-1) which became subject matter of challenge by writ petitioner Seema Bisht (respondent No. 1 herein) by way of CWP(T) No. 4704 of 2008 [OA No. 2153 of 1997], inter alia, praying as under:

(3.) Vide impugned judgment dated 31.8.2010, learned Single Judge quashed such order of appointment. Primarily what weighed with the learned Single Judge was non advertisement of the post in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India & others vs. N. Hargopal & others, 1987 3 SCC 308; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District A.P. vs. K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao & others, 1996 6 SCC 216; Nagendra Chandra & others vs. State of Jharkhand & others, 2008 1 SCC 798; National Fertilizers Limited & others vs. Somvir Singh, 2006 5 SCC 493; State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & others, 2009 5 SCC 65; and Union of India & others vs. Pritilata Nanda, 2010 11 SCC 674 as also the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Tungeshwar Nath vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 119 FLR 196.