Maya Devi vs Kuldeep Singh Rana and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 11315 of 2008 (OA No. 3290 of 2004) was disposed off by this Court on 9.10.2009 by passing following order:

The petitioner in the petition has prayed a direction against respondent No. 3 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in view of the interview held on 23.04.2003 for the post of Drawing Master.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure A-3 dated 05.09.2003 wherein it has been stated that the name of Maya Devi has been selected for the post of Drawing Master on batch wise basis.

The case of the petitioner is that she is of 2002 batch which fact has not been denied by the respondents. The respondents in their reply have taken the stand that petitioner has done relevant course from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, which is not recognized and, therefore, she could not be appointed as Drawing Master.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has today produced a copy of letter dated January, 2009, which is taken on record, wherein a policy decision has been taken by the Government that the candidates who have obtained degrees/diplomas in between 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005 from deemed universities, they would be eligible for employment in the Government.

The case of the petitioner falls in the category mentioned in the letter dated January, 2009. In these circumstances, the petitioner is fully eligible for appointment as Drawing Master on the basis of interview held on 23.04.2003 as she has qualified the relevant course from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, a deemed University, in the year 2002. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of one month from today for her appointment as Drawing Master, for which she was interviewed and issue her appointment letter as per her batch. Petition disposed of.

It cannot be disputed that interviews held on 23.4.2003 for the post of Drawing Master were for batch-wise appointment on regular basis.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, vide order dated 22.3.2010 (Annexure C-2) respondents have offered appointment to the petitioner on contract basis. It is pleaded that no regular appointment could have been offered to the petitioner for the simple reason that diploma in question was recognized by the Government only in January, 2009. Recognition was not with retrospective effect and as on the date when interviews were held in 2003 petitioner was not eligible. Order dated 9.10.2009 is evidently clear. Apparently the same stands accepted by them. It is always open for the respondents to independently assail the same but however such defence cannot be allowed to be taken in these proceedings.

Consequently, direction is issued to the respondents to comply with the order dated 9.10.2009 in letter and spirit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.