IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7456 of 2011 Date of decision : 28.4.2011 Ram Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider their claim for grant of State Awards for the year 2009. The petitioners contend that on 23.7.2009 names were invited from eligible teachers who could get the outstanding Awards of the State. The last date for receipt of the applications was 31.8.2010. Since the petitioners fulfilled the criteria they applied in response to the said notice and their names were forwarded along with their complete profiles to respondent No.2. For some reason the names of the petitioners could not be finalised and subsequently in August 2010 names were invited again. The grievance of the petitioners is that this notice of August 2010 was not circulated in their schools and thus they could not apply C.W.P.No.7456 of 2011 -2- for the Awards. Few teachers who were selected got the awards on 5.9.2010. The prayer made in this writ petition is that they be considered for the grant of State Awards for the year 2009. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is misconceived. The names of the petitioners were only forwarded on their applications having been submitted for consideration of the grant of State Awards for the year 2009. In this year the State did not grant the Awards to any one and in the year 2010 fresh exercise was undertaken. If the petitioners were aggrieved of the action of the respondents in not considering their names for the grant of Awards, they should have agitated the matter in the very first instance i.e. in the year 2009 or in 2010 when the applications were invited. Even if it is presumed that the notice was not circulated in their schools, the petitioners were conscious of the fact that the State Awards are granted by the State on 5th of September every year and they could have made a grievance at that point of time. Now when the event is over, they cannot lay the claim that they may be considered for grant of State Awards for the year 2009. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 28.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss