IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3381 of 2008 Date of decision: 14-1-2009 Santosh Kumari … Appellant versus State of Haryana & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration and mandatory injunction has been dismissed. As per case set out by the plaintiff, in her plaint, she had got herself registered with the Employment Exchange, Bhiwani. Similarly, defendant No.6, namely, Santosh Devi daughter of Rattan Singh, belonging to her village, was also enrolled with the Employment Exchange. Thereafter, Defendant No.2-District Education Officer, Bhiwani, called for the names of candidates for filling up 24 vacancies of S.S. Teachers to the Divisional Employment Exchange,Bhiwani. Out of these posts, five posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5 posts for Backward class while rest of the 14 posts were meant for unreserved category. The case of the plaintiff was that she though applied for the post but was never called for interview and instead, defendant No.6 Santosh Devi daughter of Rattan Singh, whose name and father's name are synonymous, appeared before the Interview Board in a fraudulent manner and got herself employed as S.S. Teacher in Government High School, Imlota, Tehsil Dadri and as such, now she is entitled to be appointed as S.S. Teacher with effect from 22.9.1995. The Courts below on appreciation of the evidence adduced on record have found that notice was sent to her but she did not appear on 22.9.1995 and was absent and a person cannot be appointed in absentia. It has also been found that defendant No.6, Santosh Devi who was selected, was found in the R.S.A. No. 3381 of 2008 -2- unreserved category whereas her name(plaintiff's name) was sponsored against reserved vacancy for backward class. There was no occasion for committing such a mistake. It has further been found by the Courts below that subsequently also, 14 vacancies of S.S. Teachers were notified, for which interview was conducted on 3.1.1996 and 4.1.1996 by the Interview Committee and plaintiff had also appeared in the interview for the post of S.S. Teacher on 4.1.1996 but was not selected as she had not come in the merit list of the selected candidates. Even other wise, defendant No.6 was found to be possessed of higher qualification than the plaintiff. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 14, 2009 JUDGE JS Defendant No.2-District Education Officer, Bhiwani, demanded the names of candidates for 24 vacancies of S.S. Teachers of Divisional Employment Exchange,Bhiwani. Out of these posts, five posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5 posts for Backward class whereas rest of the 14 were for unreserved category. The case of the plaintiff was that she though applied for the post but was never called for interview and instead, defendant No.6 Santosh daughter of Rattan Singh, whose name and father's name are synonymous, appeared before the Interview Board in a fraudulent manner and got herself employed as S.S. Teacher in School, Tehsil Dadri and as such, now she is entitled to be appointed as S.S. Teacher with effect from 22.9.1995. The Courts below on appreciation of the evidence adduced on record have found that notice was sent to her but she did not appear on 22.9.1995 and was absent and a person cannot be appointed in absentia. It has also been found that defendant Santosh Devi who was selected, was found in the unreserved category whereas her name (plaintiff's name) was sponsored against reserved vacancy for backward classes. There was no occasion for committing such a mistake. It has further been found by the Courts below that subsequently also, 14 vacancies of S.S. Teachers were notified, for which interview was conducted on 3.1.1996 and 4.1.1996 by the Interview Committee and plaintiff had appeared in the interview for the post of S.S. Teacher on 4.1.1996 but was not selected as she had not come in the merit list of the selected candidates.