Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 to the post of Art and Craft Teachers in pursuance of advertisement dated 11.12.2006. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Art and Craft Teacher.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition, are that an advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper 'The Tribune' dated 11.12.2006 whereby total 500 posts were to be filled up from amongst male and female candidates. Petitioners being the paternal grandsons of freedom fighter applied for the post of Art and Craft Teachers against quota reserved for freedom fighter category. As per advertisement, the total number of posts of Art and Craft Teachers were to be filled up as per ratio of 50-50, meaning thereby 250 posts were reserved for male and 250 for female candidates. Out of total posts, 5 seats were reserved for the freedom fighter category, 2 posts were reserved for male category and 2 posts were reserved for female category and the 5th post was to go to the candidate with higher merit amongst males/females. Counseling for various categories was conducted on 19.8.2009, 20.8.2009, 22.10.2009 and 3.11.2009. The counseling for the candidates who are sons/daughters of freedom fighters was to be conducted on 23.2.2010 whereas the counseling for the candidates who were paternal grand-sons/grand-daughters, maternal grand-sons/grand-daughters of freedom fighters was conducted on 10.3.2010. Letters were sent to the candidates for counseling wherein it was specifically mentioned that the call for interview was the last call and no further opportunity shall be granted thereafter. In spite of specific mention in the letters issued to the candidates, still candidates were called for counseling. As per case of the petitioners, they came to know about this fact subsequently under the Right to Information Act.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that some of the candidates were allowed to appear in the counseling even after the last date, whereas, it was specifically mentioned that no opportunity would be given after the last date. Petitioners were not allowed after the last date otherwise as per their merit, they would have been selected/appointed. Some of the candidates who were allowed to appear in the counseling were not having original documents and they were considered wrongly for ulterior reasons.;