CWP No.24310 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24310 of 2011 Date of decision:23.12.2011 Mohinder Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.N.G.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved against the appointment of respondent No.4 as Guest Lecturer (Hindi) vide resolution dated 30.05.2007 in Senior Secondary School, Thumbber, Tehsil Brara, District Ambala. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no proper public notice was issued and all the proceedings were finalized and also passed on that date itself, i.e, on 30.05.2007 as there is resolution of the said date of the school authorities. The petitioner had also approached this Court earlier in CWP No.21668 of 2008 decided on 24.12.2008 wherein a direction had been issued for passing a speaking order after taking all aspects of the case of the petitioner within a period of 30 days. The petitioner also filed COCP No.1414 of 2009 which was decided on 07.08.2009. A perusal of the speaking order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Thambber, Tehsil Brara, District Ambala goes on to show that for the appointment of the Guest Lecturer for Hindi subject, a notice to the effect was displayed on the main-gate of the school and the last date for filing of application was fixed as 30.05.2007 and only two candidates, viz., respondent No.4, Smt.Asha Rani and Smt.Anupama had applied for Hindi subject as Guest Faculty Teacher. Ultimately, respondent No.4 had been appointed on the basis of being higher in merit. CWP No.24310 of 2011 2 Counsel for the petitioner has also alleged that the application was sent under postal certificate but the same was never received by the school till the selection of respondent No.4 and neither was received thereafter, as per the speaking order, and therefore, he could not be considered for the said post. Accordingly, the appointment of respondent No.4 had been made on merit as per the records available with the school authorities. A perusal of the above order goes on to show that the petitioner is raising disputed questions as to whether any notice was displayed on the main-gate of the school or not and also as to whether he had applied for the said post or not. Such issues cannot be decided in a writ petition in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Another factor which weighs heavily against the petitioner is that the order was not challenged in the year 2009. A period of more than two years has elapsed since the filing of the present petition for the reasons best known to the petitioner who could have responded immediately after passing of the speaking order. The present writ petition is thus barred on the principle of delay and latches. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 23.12.2011 sailesh