C.W.P.No.2708 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2708 of 2011 Date of Order: 14.2.2011 Monika Sahni .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner was one of the applicants for recruitment to 250 posts of Social Study Mistress advertised vide advertisement dated 2.10.2006 (P.1). It appears that the petitioner at the graduate level having possessed the degree of B.Com was considered ineligible in view of the prescribed/advertised basic qualifications. It is stated that the petitioner was, however, permitted to appear in the interview but realizing that she did not possess the required qualification, her merit was not determined on the ground that she was ineligible though no written order was passed. Learned counsel submits that subsequently a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.16859 of 2010 titled as Nitika Garg v. State of Punjab and others decided on 21.5.2008 had laid down that a candidate, who had B.Com degree in under graduate course was eligible and entitled to be considered. He submits that as per the prescribed/adopted criteria, the petitioner would secure 75.8 % whereas the last person selected in her C.W.P.No.2708 of 2011 #2# category has secured 73.3%. He further submits that in view of Nitika Garg's case (supra), petitioner claims similar treatment on the ground that her eligibility conditions being determined by a Division Bench of this Court and in view of the persons being junior in merit having been appointed, the petitioner has a right to seek appointment. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was issued in the year 2006 and in pursuance of the same, selections and appointment were made in the year 2007. In Nitika Garg's case (supra) decided by Division Bench of this Court, said Nitika had approached this Court in 2007 itself and relief was granted whereas in the present case, more than four years have lapsed and, therefore, in view of the unexplained gross/inordinate delay and laches, no case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. Dismissed. February 14, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE