* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15102/2006 DR. ANJUL SHARMA ..... Petitioner in WPC 14700 & 15102. Through Ms. Jasmine Ahmed, Advocate in WPC 14700 & 15102. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.Nidhi Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 29.05.2008 1. The petitioner, Dr. Anjul Sharma has filed the present Writ Petition for appointment as Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) under DIET with State Council for Educational Research and Training, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as SCERT, for short). Petitioner had applied for the said post pursuant to advertisement no. 6/2004 issued by SCERT. The allegation made in the Writ Petition is that the said post was wrongly offered to one, Dr. Sangeeta Chaudhary who has been arrayed as respondent no.4. It is stated by the petitioner that Dr. Sangeeta Chaudhary was on the waiting list whereas the petitioner in fact had been selected as Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) under DIET. 2. Respondent no.4 has filed counter affidavit virtually admitting all facts as stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated that offer of appointment was made by Director, SCERT to the respondent no.4 and the offer of appointment was accepted by the said respondent. 3. SCERT has filed counter affidavit stating that three posts of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) were advertised but one post was for reserved category. The Selection Committee had recommended two candidates in General Category for appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE). The first candidate was one, Dr. Lovely Puri and the petitioner was placed at serial no.2 on the list of selected candidates. It is stated that accordingly the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the second post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) under DIET. 4. The respondent-SCERT has also explained how and why offer of appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) was made to the respondent no.4. It is pointed out that another post of Sr. Lecturer (Science and Maths) was also advertised and in terms of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, one Dr. V.P. Singh was appointed. Dr. V.P.Singh joined the said post on 4th April, 2005 but subsequently resigned on 30th November, 2005. Dr. Anjul Sharma and Dr. Mohsin Khan were placed at serial nos. 1 and 2 on the waiting list for appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (Science and Maths). After Dr. V.P. Singh had resigned, the post of Sr. Lecturer (Science & Maths) again fell vacant and by mistake Dr. Sangeeta Chaudhary who was on waiting list at Serial no.1 for the said post was issued the offer of appointment for the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) and the petitioner was issued offer of appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (Science and Maths), as she was on the waiting list. 5. It is further stated by the respondent-SCERT that the offer of appointment to Dr.Sangeeta Chaudhary was not in accordance with law and therefore the said offer has been withdrawn. The offer had to be first given to the petitioner as she had been selected for the said post and had the first right to accept or reject the offer. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is entitled to appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) and the offer of appointment is being issued to her. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that the petitioner was offered the post of Sr. Lecturer (Science and Maths) which was accepted by the petitioner and therefore she does not have any right to be appointed to the post of Sr.Lecturer (PSTE). 7. It is clear from the above that the respondent-SCERT is supporting the petitioner. It is the respondent no.4 who is opposing the writ petition. I have examined the said contentions of the respondent no.4 but do not find any merit in the same. As explained by SCERT in their counter affidavit, Dr. V.P. Singh was offered and was appointed to the post of Sr.Lecturer (Science and Maths) under unreserved category. He had joined the said post on 5th April, 2005 and continued till he resigned on 30th November, 2005. Even though the petitioner was at serial no.1 in the waiting list for appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (Science and Maths), she had been selected for appointment to the post of Sr.Lecturer (PSTE) under DIET. The petitioner should be first offered post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE), a post for which she has been selected. Only upon her refusal, the said post can be offered to the respondent no.4. SCERT cannot insist that the petitioner should join post of Sr. Lecturer (Science and Maths) as the said post has fallen vacant and the petitioner was no.1 on the waiting list. The petitioner has to be given choice and cannot be denied right of appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE), a post for which she was selected. This post can be offered to the respondent no.4 only after the petitioner rejects the offer of appointment. SCERT has therefore correctly not issued posting order and has taken remedial steps to correct the error. The respondent- SCERT has admitted its mistake in not offering letter of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE). The petitioner should not suffer for the lapse on the part of the respondent-SCERT. The petitioner was entitled to appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) in her own right pursuant to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee recommending that she should be appointed to the said post under DIET. The petitioner was only a wait-listed candidate for the post of Sr. Lecturer (Science and Maths), but had been selected for the post of Sr.Lecturer (PSTE) under DIET category. 8. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-SCERT, nothing survives in the present Writ Petition as the said respondent has admitted the petitioner’s right to be offered appointment to the post of Sr.Lecturer (PSTE). The respondent-SCERT will be bound by the statement made in their counter affidavit. The respondents will process the case of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably issue offer of appointment within three weeks from today. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent will also examine the case of the petitioner with regard to seniority and pass appropriate order in this regard. In case any third person has been appointed to the post of Sr. Lecturer after selection of the petitioner appropriate order will be passed. It may be noted here that the respondent-SCERT did not issue the offer of appointment to the petitioner in spite of the facts stated in the counter affidavit because the present Writ Petition was pending. 10. It is however clarified that the petitioner will be entitled to salary and emoluments of the post of Sr. Lecturer (PSTE) only from the date when she joins the said post. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 29, 2008. P/vld