In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 17308 of 2006 Date of Decision: 2.11.2006 Santra Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT: Ms. Upasana Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks direction for consideration of her case and issuance of appointment letter for the post of JBT Teacher. It is admitted position that the selection process in which the petitioner had succeeded was held in December, 1994. She has filed a representation to the respondents which has been rejected by an order dated 3.7.2006 (P-5) pointing out that all the 5500 posts have been filled up by issuance of appointment letters to the selected candidates. It was further pointed out that the name of the petitioner was not even mentioned in the list of selected candidates. There is C.W.P. No. 17107 of 2006 some dispute as to whether the petitioner has succeeded and her name figured in the list of selected candidates but that will not make any material difference because the instant petition is highly belated. Even a civil suit on a cause of action which had taken place in December, 1994, would not be competent. It is well settled that the period of limitation provided for filing a civil suit can be imported with regard to filing of writ petition as well, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. The writ petition is highly belated, accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (M.M.S. BEDI) October 30, 2006 JUDGE Pkapoor 2