Smt. Sunita v. State Of Haryana And Another

J.V Gupta, J.:— Direction is being sought in this writ petition to respondent No. 1, i.e the State of Haryana through the Director of Employment Exchange to forward the name of the petitioner for the recruitment as Lecturer in Sanskrit for Senior Secondary School in the State of Haryana.

2. The petitioner passed her M.A degree in Sanskrit securing 60 per cent marks. She got her name registered at Chandigarh with the respondent No. 1 for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit under Registration No. 2081 of 1984. According to the petitioner respondent No. 2 Shrimati Punam Sharma got her name registered vide Registration No. 1437 of 1985 at Manimajra whereas respondent No. 3 Shrimati Suman Lata got her name registered vide registration No. 2882 of 1984.

3. According to the petitioner, she got her name registered earlier than the respondents No. 2 and 3 but strangely enough, no call has been issued to her whereas respondents No. 2 and 3 have already been selected and posted as Lecturer in Sanskrit for teaching Senior Secondary classes in the Senior Secondary School. This action, according to the petitioner, on the part of respondent No. 1 is highly discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of more than one year as the demand for the posts of Sanskrit Lecturers against which the names of respondents No. 2 and 3 were sponsored were sent to the Employment Exchange in the month of June, 1985. The petitioner has not moved any representation about her grievance to the answering respondents prior to her writ petition. Hence it suffers from laches. It is further stated that there is no legal right of the petitioner any infringement whereof could entitle her to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. On merits, in reply to para 7, the stand taken was that respondents No. 2 and 3 were registered in Gurgaon District. The main reason for not sponsoring the name of the petitioner for the post of Sanskrit Lecturer was that she wanted a job in Bhiwani district only but no vacancy of Sanskrit Lecturer for unreserved category was received from the District Education Officer, Bhiwani, to the District Employment Officer, Bhiwani. The District Education Officer, Bhiwani, put a demand for reserved categories of Sanskrit Lecturer, i.e Scheduled Caste, Backward Class and Ex-Servicemen. Moreover, at the time of registration of an applicant in the employment exchange, apart from other queries a specific query is made about the places where one would like to serve and choice expressed is recorded in Column No. 14 of the Form. The petitioner expressed her desire to work in Bhiwani district at the time of registration of her name in the District Employment Exchange Bhiwani on 23.7.1984 A copy of her index card was annexed as Annexure R/3. It has also been stated that the petitioner initially got her name registered at the District Employment Exchange Gurgaon in the year 1981 for the post of High School Teacher as she had passed her B.Ed examination but on 4.7.1984, she got it transferred to District Employment Exchange, Bhiwani. No replication has been filed cotroverting the said facts pleaded in the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner's name was not sent because she expressed her desire to work in Bhiwani District at the time of registeration of her name. In these circumstances, I do not find that the petitioner is entitled to any relief from this Court in this writ petition.

5. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any case as and when any next vacancy arises for Sanskrit Lecturer anywhere in the State of Haryana, her name may be recommended as she will join at any place in the State of Haryana. There is no objection to this offer of the petitioner. In these circumstances, in future as and when any vacancy arises, name of the petitioner may be recommended by respondent No. 1 for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit but no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. Petition dismissed.