SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying therein that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may be directed to call the petitioner for interview and if he stands in merit, his candidature be considered for appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade III.

(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the instant petition, are that on 21. 2. 2003, an advertisement, in the form of public notice, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade III, was issued by the respondents. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner, being eligible for the post, applied and also submitted required mark sheets and certificates. His mark sheets and certificates were considered and he was found eligible, so his name was included in the tentative merit list prepared by the respondents and a call letter dated 25. 3. 2004 (Annexure 1) was issued by the Office of the District Education Officer, Secondary I, Alwar, in which it was stated that the petitioner should remain present for interview on 29. 3. 2004, at 10. 00 a. m. , along with all the original documents and attested copies thereof. It is further averred by the petitioner in the instant petition that to the utmost surprise of the petitioner, the call letter reached the petitioner on the date of interview, i. e. 29. 3. 2004, at 4. 00 p. m. Therefore, in such peculiar circumstances, it was not possible for the petitioner to reach for interview in time. Thereafter, the petitioner to reach for interview in time. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately approached the Post Master stating that he has been delivered the post at belated stage, then, after inquiry, the Post Master gave a receipt dated 29. 3. 2004 (Annexure 2) mentioning therein that the call letter dated 25. 3. 2004 was received in his Office on 29. 3. 2004 at 2. 30 p. m. and the same was delivered at the postal address of the petitioner at 4. 00 p. m. Thus, it is averred that the petitioner received the delayed call letter, only to fault of the Respondents. It is also averred in the instant petition that on 29. 3. 2004, a telegram (Annexure 3) was also given by the respondents, calling the petitioner for the interview on 29. 3. 2004. However, the petitioner immediately, after delayed communication, rushed to the interview place, but till then, the interview has been accomplished. Then, immediately, the petitioner approached the District Education Officer and submitted his representation dated 29. 3. 2004 (Annexure 4), mentioning the grievance that he received the call letter after completion of interview, i. e. at 4. 00 p. m. , therefore, he should be permitted to appear in the interview now. On the next day also, i. e. , 30. 3. 2004, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation (Annexure 5) ventilating his grievance that due to respondents fault, call letter was communication to him after completion of interview, therefore, he should be called for interview on any date fixed by the respondents. Since no reply was received by the petitioner from the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of writ petition, under its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Smt. Kanchan Kumari vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1283/2001) decided by the learned Single Judge held that the denial of admission mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not appear on 26. 3. 2001, despite the fact that the letter dated 24. 3. 2001 by which she was directed to appear on 26. 3. 2001, was received by the petitioner on 27. 3. 2001, would amount to infringement of her legal right which has accrued in her favour.