Petitioner sought appointment to a Lecturer Sanskrit post claiming wrong interview marks supplied by respondents (HSSC). The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was stale, hit by delay and latches, and no ground for interference existed.
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.
CWP No.10658 of 2019 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10658 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.07.2019
Seema Yadav
...Petitioner
Vs
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ..Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has chosen to rake up issue with following prayer by moving application under Right to Information Act on 25.07.2013 with regard to outcome of result in respect of selection of candidates for Lecturer Sanskrit (School Cadre) in pursuance of advertisement No.1/99:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Lecturer Sanskrit (School Cadre), in pursuance to Advt. No.1/99 under DESM (Gen) category on the basis of result of written examination and interview of petitioner held on 6.12.2004 and /or to get the matter inquired into as respondents have knowingly or purposely supplied wrong information of marks of interview to be included
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.07.29 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.10658 of 2019 (O&M) -2-
in 122 marks, which is shown in compilation of result dated 5.12.2004 and/or to pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.”
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner having been participated in written examination sought indulgence of this Court vide CWP No.17382 of 2004 wherein by virtue of interim order, was interviewed and vide order dated 29.03.2005 (Annexure P-3), writ petition was disposed off as rendered infructuous.
An attempt has been made to highlight conduct of the selection authorities as result was purportedly declared on 6/7.12.2004 whereas petitioner, according to information received under RTI, was called for interview on 6.12.2004. No explanation has come forward for not seeking information for almost 9 years. Even no concerted effort has been made with regard to destruction of record information received under RTI vis-a-vis advertisement No.1/99 . It is matter of record that that petitioner was intimated on 28.04.2005 about his name kept at Sr. No.1 in waiting list.
Writ petition is basically an attempt to rake up an issue, which has already become stale and hit by doctrine akin to delay and latches. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
July 22, 2019 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.07.29 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Writ Petition filed for appointment as Lecturer Sanskrit is maintainable after a long delay?
Whether the petitioner has made out any ground for interference despite stale claims?
Seema Yadav
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
