- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner alleges to have been given appointment through a letter dated 9th January, 1989 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition ). It is further alleged that on account of theft of the original High School certificate, the petitioner could not produce the same Subsequently, the petitioner had produced duplicate High School certifi cate yet petitioner was never allowed to join her duties.
(2.) BY means of this writ, petition, the petitioner has claimed that she was initial ly appointed in C. T. Grade teacher w. e. f. 12th January, 1989 on which dated she alleges to have submitted her joining report. Mr. Radhcy Shyam learned Coun sel for the petitioner, contends that since the petitioner was appointed and she had produced the relevant certificate she was eligible for discharging her duties and receipt of payment. Mr. Arun Tandon, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the petitioner having failed to join within the time specified and there having been no prayer for extension of time for joining and the appointment ini tially having been for a limited period till 20th May, 1989, there was no scope for giving appointment to the petitioner par ticularly when the petitioner never ap proached the Manger. His second conten tion was that the Government having declared C. T. Grade teacher as dying cadre, by reasons a circular dated 27th June, 1989, which is Annexure-CA-6 to the counter-affidavit, filed by A. N. Siddiqui on behalf of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools stipulating that even if selection and appointment has been made no person can be allowed to join as C. T Grade teacher after 14th May, 1989. Therefore, the petitioner can not claim any right being so appointed. His third contention is that there was no sanctioned post in which the petitioner could be accomodated inasmuch as according to him as contended in the counter-affidavit by Naresh Chandra that in addition to the sanctioned posts seven more posts were requisitioned by the Management pur suant to which seven teachers were selected and directed to be given appoint ment, there having been no proof that there was any such sanction or creation of posts, there was no scope for the petitioner being so appointed. Mr. C. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel points out and contends that the petitioner having not joined within the reasonable time no relief can be had by the petitioner, by means of this writ petition.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties, it appears from Anncxarc-1, being the appointment letter that the Appointment could be terminated prior to 20th May, 1989 or after 20th May, 1989 according to the decision of the Selection Board. It is further stipulated that within one week of receipt of the appointment letter the petitioner had to resume his duties after/upon producing the relevant certificates. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the High School certifica tion. She sought to produce the High School Certificate subsequently to the Regional Inspectress of Girls' School by successive letters dated 9th February, 1989 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), 12th February, 1989, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, and 13th April 1989, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. All these letters were addressed to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. In the writ petition it has been alleged that the petitioner had joined and submitted her joining report on 12th January. 1989. In the counter- af fidavit it has been alleged that the joining report was not accepted and she was never allowed to take any classes. While the learned Counsel for the petitioner con tends that the petitioner had resumed her duties and taken classes. This being a dis puted question of fact, this Court cannot enter into the same while, exercising writ jurisdiction. This Court proceeds with the view that the petitioner did not join her services. Admittedly, the petitioner had been making representations one after another. By the process 20th May, 1989 had elapsed. As translated at the bar, An-nexure-1 to the writ petition, cannot be construed to mean that the appointment was for a limited period as contended by Sri Tandon. On the other hand it appears that the services could be terminated before 20th May, 1989 without assigning any reasons. But after 20th May, 1989 the services could be terminated only accord ing to the direction of the Selection Board. On the other hand the said ap pointment letter made it clear that the petitioner had to join within one week upon production of relevant certificate. Admittedly, the petitioner could not join after production of relevant papers within the time mentioned. However, facts remain that the duplicate certificate was issued on 4th February, 1989 and was sought to be produced on 9th February, 1989. The appointment letter was issued on 9th January, 1989. Therefore, it cannot be said that the duplicate certificate was not sought to be produced within a reasonable time after the date of issue of appointment letter which the petitioner had sought to produce through a repre sentation on 9th February, 1989 within the period which appears to be one month and which cannot be said to be un reasonable period. Therefore, the conten tion that the petitioner cannot be accom modated on account of expiry of reasonable time for joining the service cannot be sustained.;