Rohit Arora vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

Lok Pal Singh, J

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.2 to give joining to the petitioner on the post of Lab technician in All India Institute of Medical Science Uttarakhand Rishikesh.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lab Technician in respondent no.2 Institute, vide appointment letter dated 30.07.2018. In the appointment letter, it was mentioned that joining of the petitioner will be effective from 16.08.2018. On 1.09.2018, a letter regarding approval of joining in respondent no.2 Institute was given to the petitioner, thereby mentioning that the petitioner will be under the probation period for 3 months and that he will given training under Dr. Nidhi Jain starting from 4.09.2018 to 10.09.2018. Thereafter, a possession letter was issued to the petitioner indicating certain terms and conditions of service, and that this letter is valid till 115.09.2018 and the petitioner was asked to send a signed copy of this letter indicating his acceptance to join. In pursuance thereof, petitioner submitted his acceptance letter through e-mail on 15.09.2018. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date the petitioner has not been given joining by the respondent no.2. Hence, this writ petition.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 wherein the respondent no.2 has specifically denied issuance of any appointment letter to the petitioner. It is stated that the appointment letter dated 30.07.2018, letter regarding approval of joining dated 01.09.2018, possession letter dated 11.09.2018 and fee receipt dated 30.7.2018 are forged and were never issued by respondent no.2. It is also stated that the e-mail also does not belong to the respondent no.2.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the averments made in the counter affidavit to some extent.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

Although the petitioner is claiming appointment on the strength of appointment letter dated 30.07.2019 issued by respondent no.2 but neither the petitioner has annexed any advertisement on the basis of which he is claiming appointment, nor has shown the mode of appointment. There is specific denial by the respondent no.2 regarding issuance of any appointment letter to the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is the petitioner who has to prove his case by placing on record the relevant documents. But the petitioner has failed to prove that any advertisement was ever issued for appointment on the post of Lab Technician or that any written examination or interview was conducted. Furthermore, the averments made in the counter affidavit that the appointment letter and other documents are forged have not been specifically denied by the petitioner.

In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid of merit. Same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.