IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4286 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.3.2008 Bhanu Prashar Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Shri Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays that the order dated 9.10.2007 (P/9) be quashed vide which his prayer, to adjust him as a guest faculty teacher in place of respondent No.5, was rejected. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were the candidates for guest faculty teacher’s post. Respondent No.5 was selected, whereas it is case of the petitioner that he was not even considered. The petitioner came to this Court, by filing CWP No.12606 of 2008, which was disposed of on 16.8.2007, directing respondent No.4 to decide legal notice served by the petitioner. Vide order under challenge, legal notice has been rejected, by observing thus:- “It is wrong and incorrect that Sh.Bhanu Prasar applied for the vacant post of lecturer (Sanskrit) on 23.7.2007 as his Civil Writ Petition No.4286 of 2008 application was not received, accordingly the question of ignoring him for the post did not arise. As regards, the appointment of Smt.Sudesh Kumari, she along with her application submitted the proof of her having belonging to village Garhi Harsaru and besides no other application was received for the said post. A receipt of application is issued by the office to the candidate concerned on a prescribed proforma issued by the Department. In view of the facts stated above Sh.Bhyanu Prasar has no cause of action what so ever and as such his legal notice is disposed off accordingly. It is also pertinent to mention here that Sh.Bhanu Prasar has been working as Sanskrit teacher under Guest Faculty at Government Senior Secondary School, Dhankot (Gurgaon) since 2.11.2006 and he has concealed this material fact in his legal notice.” Reading of passage extracted above, indicates that candidature of the petitioner was not considered because his application was not received in the office and secondly he had been working as a guest faculty teacher in some other school. Counsel states that the petitioner had submitted his application. To say so, he has placed reliance upon document (P/10) i.e. alleged receipt. Reading of the document nowhere indicates that this receipt was issued to the petitioner. Otherwise also, academic session is virtually over. At this stage, no relief can be given to the petitioner. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge March 18, 2008 (K.C. Puri) 2 Civil Writ Petition No.4286 of 2008 gk Judge 3