Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers: - It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) the impugned order dated 08.09.2012 (Annex. 9) may kindly be declared arbitrary, illegal, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to provide the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III Level -II (Social Studies). (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the selection process of the Teacher Gr. III (Level II) held by the respondent, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar, vide the merit list (Annex. 12), name of the petitioner was at serial No. 40 with 147.15 marks. He further submitted that the persons in the said merit list at Serial No. 25 and 26, namely, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav and Ms. Suman Bala, who have shown as 'BC -WE' should have been appointed as Teacher in the OBC category and if that had been done, the petitioner would have got a chance to be appointed in the OBC category. The respondents, in their reply, have denied this and submitted that the recruitment process had already been done and completed in the year 2012, is no longer open and in absence of any interim protection granted by this Court to the petitioner directing the respondents to keep one post vacant, the petitioner cannot be offered any appointment now as claimed by her.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should have approached the respondents first before approaching this Court by giving the details in her representation for her claim and it was expected of the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation in accordance with law. The selection process of 2012 over also now long back and in absence of any interim order of this Court keeping one post vacant, the vacancies have been filled -up, therefore, obviously the petitioner cannot be offered any appointment at this stage. If there is any such existing vacancy, the petitioner is still at liberty to file representation before the respondents, which the respondents are expected to decide the same in accordance with law.;