PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for appointment on the post of Mahila Constable.
(2.) The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No.01 of 2004 for appointment on the post of Mahila Constable, the petitioner being eligible in all respects applied for the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner has undergone the process of selection. The petitioner has been intimated vide letter dated 17.06.2005 that she has been selected and was directed to produce the relevant documents for verification. The petitioner appeared and produced all the certificates. Since the letter of appointment was not issued to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted several representations and the last representation submitted by the petitioner is vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Due to inaction on the part of the respondents and being aggrieved by non-appointment on the post of Mahila Constable, the petitioner having no alternative, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on the post in question, amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reasons assigned by the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for selection to the post in question, is an outcome of arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the highhandedness of the respondents can be evident from the fact that in spite submission of original certificates, the same has not been returned to the petitioner even after several approaches.;