MAMTA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Undisputedly, a notification was published in the Newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' asking 16 candidates, including the petitioner to remain present in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, alongwith the relevant documents for verification/scrutiny of the documents on 23.7.2004. Undisputedly, petitioner did not appear on 23.7.2004 before the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner has not subscribed the Newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar', therefore, she could not read the newspaper and could not know that she was to report in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, alongwith all the relevant documents for verification/scrutiny of the documents for issuance of the appointment letter. Learned counsel has further argued that now petitioner should be permitted to report to the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, alongwith all the documents.

(2.) In the firm opinion of this Court, writ of mandamus can be issued only when there is any infringement of the constitutional, fundamental or legal rights in favour of the petitioner and not otherwise. Respondents, under any law, cannot be enforced by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to extend the date of verification/scrutiny of the documents. Simply because petitioner could not know that she was required to report, alongwith the original documents, does not give her any legal right to command the respondents to give her another chance for the purpose of verification/scrutiny of the documents. Therefore, present writ petition seems to be misconceived. Accordingly, it is dismissed.