IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3667 of 1990 Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 Ravinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution when originally filed has prayed for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to call the petitioner for interview and to consider her claim for appointment to the post of J.B.T. teacher alongwith other candidates. It was claimed that her name was already forwarded by the District Employment Officer, Gurdaspur. Accordingly, a Division Bench of this Court on 23.3.1990 issued directions to the Departmental Selection Committee to consider her C.W.P. No. 3667 of 1990 claim for appointment to the post of J.B.T. teacher. Despite the fact that she was overage, her candidature was considered and she was found suitable. Accordingly, she was given appointment letter dated 16.5.1990 (P-7 with the amended petition) as temporary J.B.T. teacher. Thereafter the petitioner amended the petition. In the amended petition, the petitioner has claimed that she was earlier selected on 19.7.1977 when she was ordered to be appointed for a period of six months by the District Education Officer. She has claimed that no such letter was ever received by her and even a representation was made on 14.4.1978 (P-3 with the amended petition), which has not been considered. Mr. Amit Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 26.10.1949 and she has already attained superannuation and retired. Having heard learned counsel, I am of the considered view that no right of the petitioner would mature in pursuance to letter dated 14.5.1977 (P-1 with the amended petition). The appointment was given for a period of six months and she never made any complaint with regard to non-receipt of such appointment letter within a reasonable period despite the fact that she was aware when she made representation to that effect on 14.4.1978 (P-3) and subsequently on 15.2.1981, 26.8.1983 and 8.9.1986 (P-4 to P-6). The appointment which was given for six months came to an end and even otherwise the offer of appointment cannot be considered to have been made by advertising the post and after consideration of the competing 2 C.W.P. No. 3667 of 1990 claims. Therefore, no right to the petitioner has accrued which may be granted by issuance of a writ of mandamus. The petitioner has already retired and the writ petition, in fact, has been rendered infructuous and her appointment has to be considered w.e.f. 16.5.1990. In view of above, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. (M.M. KUMAR) April 29, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3