CHANDER KIRAN Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K State, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to appoint the writ petitioner to the post of Library Assistant on the basis of instructions, given by him on April 7, 1993 on the representation made by the writ petitioner seeking for a job, as is found at page 12 in Annexure P-7 appended to the writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the grounds taken as well as the documents/evidence produced in support of the writ petition. The legal contention urged by the petitioner in support of her writ petition is that since she was able to persue respondent No.2 pointing out that there was a vacancy of the post of Library Assistant available in the Education Department, he (respondent No.2) issued instructions to the concerbed authority, directing to appoint the writ petitioner against the available vacancy for a period of 89 days, as is found on the representation made by the writ petitioner addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu (respondent No.2), as per Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. That being so, as there was some delay on the part of the Authority concerned in processing the papers since, the writ petitioner as on today having been age barred, the writ petitioner submits that the court may take a lenient view and to allow the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to provide her a job.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that it was open to the petitioner on fully knowing well that according to the date of her birth being May 7, 1958 though as on the date the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu had issued instructions on April 7, 1993, the petitioner has failed to persue the authority concerned to obtain an order of appointment from the competent authority, inasmuch as, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu (respondent No.2) was not himself competent to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.