Rajni Bala v. The State Of Haryana And Ors.

1. Rajni Bala, petitioner in this petition filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for a mandamus or a direction to the respondents to appoint her as Math Mistress on the basis of selection made by Subordinate Services Selection Board. The State of Haryana through Subordinate Services Selection Board advertised 242 posts of Math Mistress out of which 125 posts were of the general category with which the present petitioner concerns. After completing the process of selection, Subordinate Services Selection Board prepared the merit list of the general category and the petitioner, Rajni Bala was shown at Sr. No. 139. Sufficient time was taken by the Board in completing the selection and in the meantime, the State employed ad hoc teachers. Those ad hoc teachers approached the High Court in different writ petitions wherein ad-interim directions were given with respect to their services. They had claimed regularisation of services. Since posts were not available, the petitioner was not appointed as Math teacher. She has, therefore, filed the present writ petition inter-alia alleging in the amended writ petition filed that persons junior to the petitioner in the merit list were given appointments whereas petitioner was ignored.

2. On notice of motion having been issued, the State has contested the writ petition by filing the reply. It is admitted that 125 posts of general category were advertised and that the petitioner's name was placed in the merit list at Sr. No. 139. It was asserted that in order of merit, 125 posts have already been filled. With respect to appointments of the juniors as alleged in the writ petition, it was stated that such appointments were made under directions of the High Court in other writ petitions and against one of the orders, passed in the writ petition, Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and going through the material placed, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot claim appointment to the post of Math Mistress as of right merely because she was one of the selected candidates. If the State had not filled 125 posts of general category which were advertised, relief could be granted to the petitioner in respect of vacancies occurring henceforth. However, since 125 posts which were advertised have been filled and the petitioner being not among 125 in the merit list cannot claim the appointment.

4. It has been argued by Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that since persons junior to the petitioner in the merit list have been appointed, it would be discriminatory if the relief is not granted to the petitioner. Reference was made to the cases of Anita Kumari and Amarjit Kaur. Similar matter was under consideration of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5533 of 1992 Madhu Bala v. State of Haryana, decided on July 30, 1992. In that case, one of the petitioners was placed on the merit list at Sr. No. 126 of Math Mistress. Argument was addressed that Anita Kumari and others were appointed ignoring the seniors. It was observed therein that when Anita Kumari's case was taken up by the Court, it was not prominently brought out that she was not among the first 125 candidates selected. With respect to other persons juniors who were allowed admission on the basis of decision by this Court, it was noticed that all the facts were not mentioned in the order and the same could not be treated as a precedent. Similar is the position in the present case. The State of Haryana has gone to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition in the cases of Amarjit Kaur and Anita Kumari against the orders of High Court. Such decisions otherwise cannot be treated as a precedent to be followed. Even if erroneous orders were passed therein, the petitioner cannot take any benefit.

5. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. Petition dismissed.