IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14220 of 2010 Shakuntla Vs. The State of Haryana & others Present: Mr.Dilbagh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The advertisement for appointment to 45 posts of Home Science Master/Mistress was issued on 20.7.2006. The petitioner was also a candidate and had made an application. She claims that she has a qualification of B.Sc. Home Science and B.Ed. She was, however, not selected and instead respondent No.4, who was one of the candidate, was selected for the post and appointed on 11.12.2008. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4. The primary grievance is that the petitioner is having B.Sc. Home Science, whereas respondent No.4 is only a graduate with Home Science as a subject. The qualification prescribed for the post, as given in Rule annexed with the petition as Annexure P-9, provides that the candidate may possess B.Sc.Home Science with B.T./B.Ed. from a recognised University and as an alternative qualification, it is provided as B.A. with Home Science as one of the elective subject with B.T./B.Ed. Since respondent No.4 was possessing one of the qualification prescribed in the rules, the appointment cannot be said to be bad on any ground. The submission also is that there was vagueness in the rules, inasmuch as that qualification of B.T./B.Ed. was not specified to be in a particular subject, as is the case in another qualification prescribed in the rules. It would not mean much as that was equally applicable to the case of the petitioner. The advertisement was issued in the year 2006. The petitioner kept quiet and has not raised Civil Writ Petition No.14220 of 2010 : 2 : any challenge to the rule position. Even there is no challenge to the rule in the present writ petition. In the absence of challenge, it would be difficult to make a grievance about the vagueness of the rule. At this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain that she had a preferential right. Preference was to be given only if other merit was equal. The appointment cannot be set-aside on the vague pleas raised in the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 11, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE