- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This is a unique case where the petitioner without any hesitation considers it to be her vested right to waste the time of the statutory functionaries and Courts by improving her case bit by bit and approaching the Courts successively.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the U. P. Higher Education Commission (hereinafter called Commission) respondent No. 2 advertised 87 vacancies to be filled up in various Degree Colleges in Hindi by Advertisement No. 26, dated 13th August, 1998, advertised in Local News Papers on 20th August, 1998. Result of the selection was declared on 13th March, 2000. Petitioner's name was found at Serial No. 5 in the Waiting List. As the petitioner was not appointed she filed Writ Petition No. 36859 of 2001 before this Court on 17-7-2001 contending as under: "that being the selected candidate of waiting list of O. B. C. against the Advertisement No. 26, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director of Higher Education, respondent No. 1 stating therein that the candidates Dr. Mansa Devi Singh who is at Serial No. 1, in waiting list and Sri Surendra Pratap Yadav who is at Serial No. 2 and Dr. Rubina who is at Serial No. 3 were provided selection order for appointment to the posts of Lecturer of Hindi and as such the petitioner is also entitled to be placed for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Hindi against waiting list of Advertisement No. 26. " The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9-11-2001 (Annexure '3') directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's representation within the stipulated period. It appears that petitioner filed another representation alongwith the copy of the order of this Court, which has been decided vide order dated 28-1-2002 holding that the relief claimed by the petitioner could not be given for the reason that the ground taken by her in representation was totally misconceived. Petitioner had contended in her representation that one Dr. Mamta Verma who was at Sl. No. 5 in the Waiting List of the O. B. C. candidates had been offered appointment against the vacancy of Advertisement No. 26 ignoring the claim of the petitioner who was over and above Dr. Mamta Verma. The representation was rejected on the ground that Dr. Mamta had been appointed against the vacancy of Advertisement No. 29 and not against that of Advertisement No. 26. Petitioner preferred this writ petition entirely on different grounds as it has been contended here that three persons of the O. B. C. category, who had been offered appointment against the vacancies in Advertisement No. 26, have not joined the post, therefore, this Court should issue direction to the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner against the vacancies of the said advertisement.
(3.) SHRI Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that whatever may be the case of the petitioner earlier, some of the vacancies of Advertisement No. 26 for the post of Lecturer in Hindi remained vacant. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to be appointed against one of the said vacancies. On the contrary, Sri C. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Pushpender Singh, learned counsel for the Commission have submitted that Advertisement No. 26 was published on 20-8-1998. Result had been declared on 3rd March, 2000. Subsequent thereto, several advertisements had been made and selection process in pursuance thereof stood completed. Select List made on 3-3-2000 had expired. Petitioner cannot improve her case and approached the Court entirely on different grounds from those which had been taken earlier, and therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.;