Civil Writ Petition No. 23974 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 23974 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Balwinder Kaur ....Petitioner V/s The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Punjab Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus praying that a decision be taken on legal notice, Annexure P-12 served by her on the respondent-department. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner had applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant pursuant to advertisement dated 07.08.2000. Despite being quite high in merit, she was not selected. In the year 2010, she applied for information under the Right to Information Act for finding out her merit position vis-à-vis other candidates. However, the said information was not supplied on the ground that no record was available. According to him, the entire action of the respondent-department is arbitrary. Under the circumstances, petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for decision on legal notice, Annexure P-12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Civil Writ Petition No. 23974 of 2011 2 The advertisement was issued way back in the year 2000. The petitioner did not succeed in the selection test. Admittedly, she never posed any challenge to selection thereafter for almost a decade. In the year 2010 for the first time she sought information regarding the merit position of the other candidates. However, vide order Annexure P-7 she was informed that merit list with regard to selection of Laboratory Assistant was not traceable in the concerned office. Resultantly, petitioner served legal notice, Annexure P-12. Only prayer made in the petition is for decision of the same. I am of the considered view that claim of the petitioner is not only belated but stale. She never challenged the selection held in the year 2000. In case, petitioner apprehended that candidates lower in merit than her had been selected, she would have availed of her remedy at the relevant time. The present petition appears to be totally frivolous. There is no ground made out for a direction to the respondent-department to take a decision on the legal notice which has been served after a lapse of 11 years of selection. The petition is thus without any merit and is hereby dismissed. December 21, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE