LPA No.307 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: LPA No.307 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: February 26, 2009 MRS. PRITI JASWAL ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. R.D. BAWA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgement dated 5.9.2008, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the amended CWP No.8819 of 1987 as having been rendered infructuous. The appellant through the aforesaid writ petition has challenged the selection and appointment of respondents No.3 & 4 to the post of Lecturer in Dance, by respondents No.1 & 2 and has also sought her own appointment to the said post. The learned Single Judge, in view of the fact that respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed to the said posts on 9.11.1987, and are working on the said post since then in absence of any interim order in the said writ petition has held that at this belated stage no relief can be granted to the appellant. The learned Single Judge observed that the matter was 'fait accompli' as the appellant must have by now crossed the maximum age for appointment to the said post and respondents No.3 & 4 are LPA No.307 of 2008 -2- continuing on the said post and must have even earned some promotions in the meantime. The learned Single Judge has thus disposed of the writ petition as having been rendered infructous. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that the appellant has filed the writ petition immediately after the selection of respondents No.3 & 4 in the year 1987, but for no fault of hers the case remained pending before the Court and no interim orders were granted. Learned counsel contended that as per settled proposition of law the Court does no wrong and the order of the Court should prejudice no one, hence the writ petition could not have been dismissed only on the ground that it could not be decided and remained pending for a long time. The learned counsel has placed reliance on R.K. Sabharwal and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as 1995 (2) RSJ 895; Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and others vs. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, reported as 1990 (5) SLR 53; S. Nagraj and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported as 1993(5) SLR 1, to contend that the appellant should have been appointed on the said post after granting her the benefit of reservation. In our considered view, though it may be correct that every case cannot be thrown out of the Court indiscriminately merely only on the ground that it remained pending before the Court for a long period of time, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the actual ground realities while deciding the case. Admittedly, the appellant is overage and cannot be given appointment at this belated LPA No.307 of 2008 -3- stage. On the other hand the respondents No.3 and 4 have more than 21 years of service to their credit. There is no error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge warranting our interference and we do not find any valid ground to upset the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE February 26, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE