Petitioner challenged her disqualification for a Guest Lecturer post, alleging wrong information by the school Principal. The court found disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.15339 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.2.2011
Neelam Devi
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.Ajit Attri, Advocate for respondent No.6.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 has been appointed as Guest Lecturer in preference to her claim. She contends that she was more meritorious having secured 57.40 % marks as against the marks of respondent No.6 who had secured lesser marks than her. The case of the petitioner further is that on 26.7.2007 she had submitted an application for being considered for appointment as Guest Lecturer, but before this appointment could come through, on 2.8.2007 a ban was imposed on the selection of said posts which persisted till 15.8.2007. On 31.10.2007, The
C.W.P.No.15339 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
Principal of Govt. Senior Secondary School, village Bakhli (respondent No.5) is said to have received an intimation requiring him to start the process of recruitment of guest lecturer on the basis of which he gave out an advertisement. For the said process the information was published by way of Munadi and was also prominently displayed. In the said notice it was given out that the desirous persons should submit the applications as per eligibility which will be accepted in the office of the Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, village Bakhli from 2.11.2007 to 7.11.2007 up to 2.00 p.m. The case of the petitioner is that since she had applied in July, 2007, so she contacted the office of the Principal, G.S.S.School, Bakhli on 5.11.2007 who apprised her that she need not apply afresh. Only two persons responded to the notice and the petitioner upon the basis of the misinformation supplied to her was deprived of the process of selection.
The respondents have denied the allegations and have stated that the initial application submitted by the petitioner in July, 2007 was incomplete, as she did not attach the proof of residence which is also not denied by the petitioner, as the certificate was admittedly submitted subsequent thereto. The respondents further denied that any information was given out to the petitioner. The Principal of the school (respondent No.5) has filed specific affidavit to that effect denying the fact that the petitioner or any of her relative approached him and that he ever gave this wrong information of not applying afresh.
On the persistence of the petitioner, an enquiry was got
C.W.P.No.15339 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
conducted by the District Education Officer which was concluded in 2009 and the report is on record as Annexure P-5 in which findings were returned against the petitioner.
The petitioner, thus, impugns the selection as also the report of the enquiry submitted by the officer and contends that she has been unnecessarily deprived of the selection on account of the manipulative tactics adopted by the Principal of the school.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contentions of the petitioner raised numerable disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in a writ petition. Whether the petitioner approached the Principal who gave her wrong information or not, or whether the Principal denied meeting the petitioner as also her relations, are all questions of fact which cannot be determined in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The glaring feature of the case is that the the petitioner does not deny the issuance of the notice and the publicity granted to it wherein the desirous candidates were required to submit their forms between particular dates to the Principal of the school. Such a notice is a notice to the general public and when the petitioner admits the issuance thereof, she cannot plead that she misunderstood its contents.
There is, thus, no ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
23.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
dss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner's approach to the Principal and the veracity of misinformation given can be determined in a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Neelam Devi
State of Haryana
Principal of Govt. Senior Secondary School, village Bakhli
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
