Geeta Devi vs State of Haryana and others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court claiming appointment as a Guest Teacher (S.S. Master) being a candidate higher in merit when appointments were made to the Guest Faculty by the Block Education Officer, Kathura, Sonepat on 13.11.2007. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that one Smt. Sarla Devi was appointed as Guest Faculty (S.S. Master) on 14.11.2007. Petitioner was much more meritorious than her and despite that fact, Smt. Sarla Devi was appointed. He contends that an enquiry was held against the Block Education Officer and the factum of the petitioner being more meritorious than Smt. Sarla Devi was established. Action was taken and accordingly, Smt. Sarla Devi was relieved but the petitioner has not been granted the appointment which she was entitled to as a consequence of the removal of Smt. Sarla Devi.

Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner could not be appointed as there was a ban imposed by the Government of Haryana on 16.11.2007. The said ban is still continuing and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly not been offered the appointment after the removal of Smt. Sarla Devi. Further submission is that the petitioner has approached this Court after a long delay of about three years and, therefore, on this ground also, the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner.

For the delay, an explanation has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had sought information under the Right to Information Act and as and when the information was supplied, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. He, accordingly, prays that the writ petition be allowed.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

The cause of action arose to the petitioner the moment she became aware of the fact that she was higher in merit and a non meritorious candidate has been appointed in her place. She further had a cause of action when the services of Smt. Sarla Devi were terminated on the ground that she was lower in merit than the petitioner and she was not appointed. This happened in the year 2007. Nothing more was required for the petitioner to approach this Court. The petitioner had only made an effort to fill up the gap by taking resort to filing an application under the Right to Information Act. The explanation put forth by the petitioner is not tenable. In any case, in the light of the ban imposed by the Government of Haryana on 16.11.2007, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this belated stage as well. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.