Delhi High Court
Prachi Jain vs Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors on 28 April, 2017
$~51
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 318/2017 & CM No.16163/2017
% Date of decision : 28th April, 2017
PRACHI JAIN ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Adv.
versus
DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD & ORS..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anchit Sharma and Mr.
Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advs.
for R-1
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.
for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The appeal has been filed assailing the order dated
30th March, 2017 whereby the W.P.(C) No.1084/2014 was
rejected. The petitioner challenged the rejection of her
candidature for appointment to the post of physiotherapist on
contractual basis for one year which was initiated by the
respondent no.1 pursuant to an advertisement dated 3rd July,
2011. In the writ petition, the following prayers were made :
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari
quashing/setting aside the contractual
appointment of physiotherapist made by the
respondent no. 1 in pursuance to
advertisement dated 3.7.2011;
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing/setting
aside the resolution no. 19 for extension of
contract in the meeting held on 10.12.2012;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent no. 1 not to make permanent
appointment for physiotherapist during the
pendency of the instant petition and direct the
respondent no. 1 to hold fresh appointments
for the post of physiotherapist in a just and
fair manner and not to further extend the
period of contract of the selected candidates
and not to make them permanent during the
pendency of the instant petition. The
petitioner should be given an appointment in
the same candidature as of respondent nos. 3
and 4 because as per admitted fact total
number of posts of physiotherapist i.e. 05 as
declared were not filled and vacancy is still
there;
xxx"
2. The writ petition was filed only in the year 2014. It
came up for consideration on 30th March, 2017 and was
rejected by the learned Single Judge which has been
impugned herein.
3. The order dated 30th March, 2017 has noted that the
period of the contract in terms of the advertisement would
have come to an end on 19th July, 2012. So far as the
selected candidates whose appointment was challenged by
the petitioner is concerned, it was noted that they were given
appointment for one year from January-February, 2012
which came to an end on expiry of one year in January-
February, 2013. The period of extension of their services
also expired in 2014.
4. It appears that the appellant was earlier compelled to
approach the court in as much as her application for grant of
information under the Right to Information Act was not
being acceded to by the respondent. However, the
information received thereunder cannot create any right in
the petitioner or entitlement so far as the writ prayers were
concerned. The above findings of the learned Single Judge
in the writ petition are unassailable and cannot be challenged
on any legally tenable grounds.
5. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and
application which are hereby dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
ANU MALHOTRA, J
APRIL 28, 2017/kr
