LPA No. 1201 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1201 of 2011 Date of decision:- 15.09.2011 Neelam Devi ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Baldev Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant. PERMOD KOHLI J.(Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order dated 23.2.2011 passed in CWP No.15339 of 2009 by learned Single Judge. Grievance of the appellant is that she applied in response to public notification issued by respondent No.5 for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer on 26.7.2007. Before the selection process could be completed, a ban was imposed on 02.8.2007 on new recruitment, which persisted till 15.8.2007. It is further stated that on 31.10.2007 respondent No.5 was informed to start the process of recruitment of guest lecturers. Fresh public notice was issued inviting applications for the posts again. Admittedly, the petitioner did not respond to the second public notice. It is alleged that the appellant approached the Principal-respondent No.5 and she was informed that since she has already applied in response to earlier notification, she need not apply afresh. The selection process was completed pursuant LPA No. 1201 of 2011 -2- to the second notice and respondent No.6 stand selected/appointed as Guest Lecturer. Having not been selected the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.2.2011 dismissed the same primarily on two counts : (1) that the writ petitioner did not apply in response to the second notice; (2) the allegations in the writ petition that the writ petitioner approached the Principal and she was informed that there is no need to apply afresh, are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that since the appellant was assured by the Principal, she had no occasion to apply again. The appellant had placed on record the second public notice dated 02.11.2007 (Annexure P-13). From the perusal of this document, it is revealed that there was no stipulation for consideration of the earlier application in response to first public notice. Thus, it is clear that the candidates were required to apply afresh. Admittedly petitioner did not apply and the question of consideration for selection/appointment does not arise. We do not find any valid ground to interfere in the judgment impugned. No merits. Dismissed. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) JUDGE September 15, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE