IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15946 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20.10.2009 Rajbeer Kaur .... PETITIONER Versus Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. H.S. Diwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.4.2008 (Annexure P-8), passed by respondent No.1, whereby claim of the petitioner for appointing her on the post of Lecturer in Computer Science/Application in Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib, a privately managed aided college, has been rejected. The petitioner also prays for issuing direction to the respondents to permit her to join her duty as Lecturer and consider her in service since 20.7.2007. In the present case, the impugned order dated 21.4.2008 was passed by respondent No.1 in pursuance of a direction issued by this Court in CWP No. 1950 of 2008, titled as Rajbir Kaur Versus Mata Gujri College, CWP No. 15946 of 2009 -2- Fatehgarh Sahib and another, decided on 11.2.2008. In the impugned order, it has been stated that vide advertisement dated 2.5.2007, posts of Professor/Assistant Professor in Computer Science/Application as per Grade and Qualifications, as prescribed by A.I.C.T.E./Punjabi University, Patiala norms, were advertised. It was specifically mentioned that the candidates with Ph.D/higher qualification and with experience of teaching P.G. classes will be preferred. The petitioner applied for the said post. She had passed her MCA on 31.5.2007 and did not fulfill the qualification of experience for the post and was found ineligible. It is mentioned that at that time, the petitioner was not even eligible for the post of Lecturer as she had not cleared her MCA degree. Thereafter, another advertisement was issued in `The Tribune' for 6 regular and 2 ad-hoc posts of Lecturer in Computer Science/Application. In the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the experience of teaching P.G classes will be preferred. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner also appeared in walk-in-interview for the post of Lecturer. Since she was not possessing any experience, therefore, she was not found fit for regular appointment. However, the Selection Committee recommended for her appointment on the post of Lecturer on ad-hoc basis, if she agreed. It is further mentioned that in view of the said selection, an appointment letter No. 659 dated 11.7.2007 was issued to the petitioner appointing her as Lecturer in Computer Science/Application on ad-hoc basis upto 31.3.2008 and she was asked to join within ten days. It is mentioned CWP No. 15946 of 2009 -3- that as the classes had already started, therefore, a telegram was issued to the petitioner to join at the earliest. It is further mentioned that in response to the appointment letter, the petitioner did not join the post, as she was insisting that she should be given regular appointment. Again a telegram was issued to her to join as Lecturer on ad-hoc basis, but she refused. It is further mentioned that without disclosing all these facts, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1950 of 20089, in which a direction was issued to decide her legal notice within a period of two months. It is stated that in view of the said direction, claim of the petitioner was considered and it has been found that since she herself has not joined the duty on the post of Lecturer on ad-hoc basis, therefore, her claim that she should be given regular appointment cannot be accepted, as she was never selected on regular post of Lecturer in Computer Science/Application. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the instant petition. Surprisingly, in the entire petition, the petitioner has not made any averment that she was not appointed on ad-hoc basis and no appointment letter was issued to her. The stand taken by respondent No.1 in the impugned order has not been controverted at all. Only it has been stated that the petitioner received a telegram for joining the duty, but later on she was not permitted to join the duty. When respondent No.1 in the impugned order has disclosed its stand, then it is imperative for the petitioner to question the said stand by making definite averment in the writ petition. CWP No. 15946 of 2009 -4- After more than one and half years of the rejection of the claim, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, without making any averment controverting the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the impugned order. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that she was appointed on regular basis. The appointment letter was issued but the same has been withheld from the Court. Even it has not been stated that the petitioner did not receive any appointment letter. Even otherwise, the ad- hoc appointment of the petitioner was for a limited period i.e. upto 31.3.2008 and the said date has also expired. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any ground to quash the order dated 21.4.2008 and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the regular post of Lecturer in Computer Science/Application. Dismissed. October 20, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE