- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging action of the respondents in not considering his case for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Grade -III. The respondents by advertisement dated 28/7/2003 notified 92 vacancies for appointment on the said post, out of which 11 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner applied for such appointment. Interview for the aforesaid appointments took place on 3/9/2003. Contention of Ms.Anisha Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that call letter was received by the petitioner on 4/9/2003 asking him to appear in the interview on 3/9/2003. Learned counsel has produced on record photostat copy of the envelop by which the call letter was received by him. According to the petitioner, this letter itself was received in the Post Office on 2/9/2003 but it was delivered to the petitioner on 4/9/2003 and by that time, interviews had already taken place on 3/9/2003. The petitioner immediately on receipt of call letter approached the respondent No.3 namely; District Education Officer (Secondary) Sriganganagar with his grievance, but he refused to consider the case of the petitioner. Resultantly, the other junior persons below in merit than the petitioner, have been selected and appointed, but the petitioner was denied the right to consideration for appointment. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : WLC 2006 (1) 525 and argued that this Court in exactly identical circumstances, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner.
(3.) SHRI Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that information about of interviews to be held on 3/9/2003 was published in daily Hindi newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 31/8/2003 and, therefore, it was required of the petitioner to have been vigilant enough and ensure that he attended the interview. If the petitioner failed to appear for interview he cannot stand to gain by his own fault. He further stated that the interviews were fixed on 3/9/2003 at 10.00 a.m. and there is the possibility that the petitioner applied in other districts too where interviews took place on the same day and therefore, he could not appear in selection in question.;