# Nirmala Devi v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 662
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-08
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 28453 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nirmala-devi-v-u-o-i-ors-47491
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., A.S.G.

A. Practice & Procedure - The application
received after the last date of submission cannot
be treated as valid application form and no
right, based upon the same, can be claimed by
such candidate. (Para 11)

The petitioner was negligent as the petitioner
sent her application form through registered
post on 27.10.2020 despite of having knowledge
of last date i.e., 30.11.2020, mentioned in the
notification. (Para 18)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:
1 All. Nirmala Devi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
663

## Text

662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandamus will not lie. These are two
exceptions to mandamus. But once these
are absent and when the party has no other
equally convenient remedy, mandamus
cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated
that the appellants-trust was managing the
affiliated college to which public money is
paid as government aid . Public money paid
as government aid plays a major role in the
control, maintenance and working of
educational
institutions.
The
aided
institutions like government institutions
discharge public function by way of
imparting education to students. They are
subject to the rules and regulations of the
affiliating University. Their activities are
closely supervised by the University
authorities.
Employment
in
such
institutions, thereof, is not devoid of any
public character. So are the service
conditions of the academic staff. When the
University takes decision regarding their
pay scales, it will be binding on the
management. The service conditions of the
academic staff are, therefore, not purely of
a private character. It has super-added
protection by University decisions creating
a legal right-duty relationship between the
staff and the management. When there is
existence of this relationship, mandamus
cannot be refused to the aggrieved party."

7. After perusal of the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the record we
find that the dispute involved in the present
writ petition between the parties is a private
dispute and in view of the judgment
rendered in the case of Andi Mukta
(supra), no mandamus can be issued by
this Court and the present writ petition is
not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the relief claimed
by the petitioner. The objection raised by
the learned Standing counsel for the State
appears to be justified.

8. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue
the other remedy available to him under
law.

9. Accordingly the present writ
petition is not maintainable and the same is
dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A662
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 28453 of 2021

Nirmala Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Zubair Hasan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.

A. Practice & Procedure - The application
received after the last date of submission cannot
be treated as valid application form and no
right, based upon the same, can be claimed by
such candidate. (Para 11)

The petitioner was negligent as the petitioner
sent her application form through registered
post on 27.10.2020 despite of having knowledge
of last date i.e., 30.11.2020, mentioned in the
notification. (Para 18)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:
1 All. Nirmala Devi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
663
1.
Neena
Chaturvedi
Vs
Public
Service
Commission, U.P. Allahabad (11) AWC (FB)

2. Smt. Sushmita Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
2014 (1) ADJ 382 (DB)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri Zubair Hasan, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P.
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
C.S.C.
appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos.
2 and 4.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying inter alia the following main
relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, direction or
order
in
the
nature
of
Mandamus
commanding the respondents to issue a call
letter and permit her to appear in the
interview which is going for selection of
post of Woman Member of District
Consumer Commission, Hardoi."

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, based upon the pleadings and
documents on record, submitted that State
Government for making appointment on
the post(s) of President(s) and Member(s)
of
District
Consumer
Commission
established in different districts of State
of
U.P.
published
a
notification/
advertisement dated 27.10.2020 and the
last date, as mentioned therein, for
submission of application form, was
30.11.2020.
Vide
application
dated
25.11.2020 (annexed as Annexure No. 2
to the petition), petitioner being eligible
applied for the post of Women Member
of
District
Consumer
Commission,
Hardoi. This application was sent through
registered post on 27.11.2020. Thereafter,
another
notification/
advertisement
dated 12.05.2021 was issued by the State
Government by which last date for
submission of application form was
extended from 30.11.2020 to 11.06.2021,
which was further extended to 25.06.2021
by a notification/ advertisement dated
10.06.2021.

4. He further submitted that when
call letters were issued to all the
candidates except the petitioner then she
represented her cause and in turn, her
request for permitting her to appear in the
interview was not acceded, despite the
fact that the Demand Draft of Rs. 1000/-
was encashed, on the ground that the
application form of the petitioner was
received in the concerned Office on
01.12.2020 i.e. after the last date of
submission of application form, which, as
per
notification/advertisement
dated
27.10.2020 was 30.11.2020, though, the
same was extended till 25.06.2021 and
being so the application form of the
petitioner was valid and she should have
been called for facing interview. He also
stated
that
the
petitioner
was
not
informed about this aspect of the case
else she would have resubmitted her
application form in pursuance to the
notification/advertisement
dated
12.05.2021. Now for the post(s) in issue,
interview is going on and would be
completed very soon and if the petitioner
is not permitted to appear in the interview
process she would suffer irreparable loss
and injury for no fault. In fact opposite
parties are at fault as they have not
informed the petitioner about the delay in
submission of application form and in
this way, the petitioner has to made suffer
for the fault of opposite parties.
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned Additional C.S.C., on the
basis of instructions, submitted that in the
notification/advertisement dated 27.10.2020
issued by the State Government, last date of
submission
of
application
form
was
30.11.2020. This last date, in fact, was not
extended
vide
notification/advertisement
dated
12.05.2021.
The
notification/advertisement dated 12.05.2021
is fresh notification inviting the applications
for the post(s) mentioned therein i.e.
President(s) and Member(s) of District
Consumer
Commission.
As
per
this
notification, last date of submission of
application(s) was 11.06.2021, which was
extended
to
25.06.2021
vide
notification/advertisement dated 10.06.2021.
The
notification/
advertisement
dated
12.05.2021 only saves the candidature of
those applicants who had submitted proper
applications within time. Meaning thereby, a
candidate whose application form, pursuant
to the notification/ advertisement dated
12.05.2021 was valid, was not required to
apply
afresh
pursuant
to
the
notification/advertisement dated 12.05.2021
and his/her candidature would be considered
otherwise not. In this case, application form
of the petitioner was not valid as the same
was received in the Office concerned on
01.12.2020 i.e. after last date of submission
of application form i.e. 30.11.2020. As such,
she is not entitled to prayer sought in the writ
petition.

6. In view of above, this Court feels that
the issues(s), under consideration, are that (i)
as to whether the application form, pursuant
to
the
notification/advertisement
dated
27.10.2020, submitted by the petitioner
through registered post on 27.11.2020 was
valid
on
the
date
of
notification/advertisement dated 12.05.2021
or not; (ii) as to whether the Department was
under obligation to inform the candidate
about the defect in application form or not;
and (iii) as to whether vide notification/
advertisement dated 12.05.2021 the last date
i.e.
30.11.2020
mentioned
in
the
notification/advertisement dated 27.10.2020,
was extended or not;

7. For adjudication of aforesaid
issue(s), it would be appropriate to refer
relevant condition(s) mentioned in the
notification(s)/advertisement(s)
dated
27.10.2020, 12.05.2021 as also 10.06.2021.

(a) Relevant portion of Condition
No. 2 of the notification/advertisement
dated 27.10.2020, reads as under:-

"blds vuqlkj fuEufyf[kr vgZrk
j[kus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkosnu& i= vkeaf+=r
fd;s tkrs gSaA vkosnu&i= dh vafre frfFk 30-112020 gksxhA"

(b) Condition No. 9 and 10 of
notification/advertisement
dated
27.10.2020, are as under:-

"9.
vH;fFkZ;ksa
}kjk
vkosnu&i=
fucU/kd] jkT; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx]
m0iz0] lh&1] fodzkUr [k.M&1 1⁄4'kghn iFk ds
cxy esa1⁄2sa xkserh uxj] y[kuÅ m-iz- fiu
dksM&226010 dks jftLVMZ i= }kjk lh/ks izsf"kr
fd;k tk;sxkA

10- vkosnu&i= fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij u
gksus] viw.kZ gksus ;k bl foKkiu dh frfFk ds iwoZ
vFkok foKkiu esa vkosnu&i= izkIr gksus gsrq fu/kkZfjr
dh xbZ vafre frfFk ds i'pkr vkosnu izkIr gksus ij
vkosnu&i= Lor% fujLr le>s tk;sxsaA inksa dh la[;k
rFkk LFkku esa ifjorZu fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fd;k
tk ldrk gSA vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosfnr tuin ds
vfrfjDr fdlh vU; tuin esa Hkh fu;qfDr fd;s tkus
ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA "

(c) Relevant portion of Condition
No. 2 as also Condition No. 4, 9 and 10 of
1 All. Nirmala Devi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
665
notification/advertisement
dated
12.05.2021, are as under:-

"blds vuqlkj fuEufyf[kr vgZrk j[kus
okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkosnu&i= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs
gSaA vkosnu&i= dh vafre frfFk 11 twu] 2021
gksxhA

4- ftu vkosndksa }kjk lnL;] ftyk
miHkksDrk vk;ksx ds in gsrq foKkfir foKkiu la[;k
lhih 202@84&2&2020&lhih 14@88 Vhlh]
fnukad 27 vDVwcj] 2020 ds dze esa vkosnu fd;k
x;k gS % dks iqu% vkosnu dh vko';drk ugha gSA

9- vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk vkosnu&i= fucU/kd]
jkT; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx] m0iz0] lh&1]
fodzkUr [k.M&1 1⁄4'kghn iFk ds cxy esa1⁄2sa xkserh
uxj] y[kuÅ m-iz- fiu dksM&226010 dks jftLVMZ
i= }kjk lh/ks izsf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA

10- vkosnu&i= fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij u
gksus] viw.kZ gksus ;k bl foKkiu dh frfFk ds iwoZ
vFkok foKkiu esa vkosnu&i= izkIr gksus gsrq
fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ vafre frfFk ds i'pkr vkosnu izkIr
gksus ij vkosnu&i= Lor% fujLr le>s tk;sxsaA
inksa dh la[;k rFkk LFkku esa ifjorZu fcuk fdlh
iwoZ lwpuk ds fd;k tk ldrk gSA vH;FkhZ }kjk
vkosfnr tuin ds vfrfjDr fdlh vU; tuin esa
Hkh fu;qDr fd;s tkus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk
gSA"

(e) The notification/advertisement
dated 10.06.2021, reads as under:-

"i=kad
lh0ih0
132@84&2&2021
fnukad 10 twu] 2021

foKfIr

loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd
dksfoM&19 egkekjh ds n`f"Vxr ftyk miHkksDrk
vk;ksx ds v/;{k ,oa lnL;ksa ds fjDRk@fjDr gksus
okys inksa ij p;u gsrq izdkf'kr foKkiu i=kad% lhih-127@84&2&2021] fnukad 12 ebZ] 2021 esa
vkosnu djus dh fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk fnukad 11
twu] 2021 ls c<+kdj 25 twu] 2021 fu/kkZfjr dh
tkrh gSA mDr in ij fu;qfDRk gsrq foKkiu i=kad%
lh0ih0 127@84&2&2021] fnukad 12 ebZ] 2021
,oa vkosnu izk:i] jkT; miHkksDrk vk;ksx dh
foHkkxh; osclkbV http://scdrc.up.nic.in/
ij viyksM gSA bPNqd vH;FkhZ mDRk osclkbV ls
lsok 'krsZa ,oa vkosnu i= dk izk:i izkIr dj]
okafNr vkSipkfjdrkvksa dks iw.kZ djrs gq, jkT;
vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa Mkd ds ek/;e ls vFkok lh/ks
fu/kkZfjr frfFk fnukad 25 twu] 2021 rd vkosnu
fucU/kd] jkT; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx]
m0iz0] lh&1] fodzkUr [k.M&1 1⁄4'kghn iFk ds cxy
esa1⁄2 xkserh uxj] y[kuÅ m0iz0 fiu dksM&226010
ds irs ij dj ldrs gSaA vkosnu i= viw.kZ gksus
vFkok fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i'pkr izkIr gksus ij
vkosnu i= Lor% fujLr le>s tk,axsA"

8. At this juncture, it would also be
appropriate
to
refer
relevant
pronouncements of this Court on the issue
as to whether the application form sent
through registered post before last date of
submission of application form is to be
treated
to
be
valid
submission
of
application form or not?

9. Relevant paragraphs 5, 33 and 39
of the judgment passed by Full Bench of
this Court in Neena Chaturvedi vs. Public
Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad,
2011 (2) AWC 1114 (FB); are quoted as
under:-

"5. The question that can be
formulated for consideration would be
"when applications are invited, one through
post office and the other by any other means
or only through post, does the post office
become the agent of the addressee, because
there is express or implied authorisation by
the addressee to send the articles by post.
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"33. Apart from that insofar as
the entire process of recruitment is
concerned, may be in the office of
respondent or any other body, which
invites applications, if view is accepted
that the post office becomes the agent of
the addressee, the very process of
recruitment itself would be frustrated. A
contract between the sender and the post
office cannot bind the addressee. Even
otherwise accepting a proposition that
the post office becomes the agent of the
body which invited the applications
would lead to manifest inconvenience
and absurdity. For how long would such
body have to wait for receipt of
applications sent by post to conduct the
interview, or hold the examination and
what happens in cases where the
application is lost through transit.
Therefore when applications are to be
received by a particular cut off date
assuming that there is an offer and
acceptance, receipt of the application by
that cut off date only would make the
acceptance complete.

39. If applications are invited
by addressee for an interview or
recruitment from eligible members from
the general public, by advertisement
either expressly by one mode or more,
one of which is post office, when an
applicant
chooses
to
send
his
application through post, though the
letter is posted in time but delivered late
after last date of receipt, the question
that arises for consideration is:-

"On an offer being made by
advertisement, and an acceptance is sent
by post, when does the acceptance
become complete, on the date of receipt
of the acceptance in the post office or its
receipt by the addressee."

On an advertisement being issued
by the offeror inviting applications through
post and the sender (applicant) sends
application through post (acceptance) but
the same does not reach by the date
mentioned in the advertisement, will the
postal rule apply? The offeror in such
cases, apart from inviting applications also
lays down as one of its terms, that
applications have to be received by a
particular date. The offer therefore made if
any, is receipt of the application through
the post by a particular date.

The postal rule however applies,
the moment an acceptance is posted
through post, then the post office becomes
the agent of the addressee (offeror). An
advertisement inviting applications for
examination or recruitment is merely an
invitation to offer and not an offer itself.
The person who sends his application by
post or by any other mode assuming it is
based on an offer, must send the
acceptance by the particular date, in terms
of offer. If it does not reach by that date,
there can be no acceptance and the postal
rule would not apply."

10.

This
question
was
again
considered by Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in Smt. Sushmita Pandey vs.
State of U.P. and another, 2014 (1) ADJ
382 (DB), and after placing reliance on
judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench in Neena
Chaturvedi (supra), it was held as under:-

"In view of the aforesaid, the
postal authority cannot be treated as an
agent of the Commission so as to treat the
dispatch of the application before the last
date by post, as having been submitted
before the last date. This apart, it was
clearly provided in the advertisement that
the print out of the online application with
1 All. Nirmala Devi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
667
the other relevant documents could also be
submitted personally which facility could
have been availed of by the petitioner but
admittedly was not availed of.

The reliefs prayed for cannot,
therefore, be granted to the petitioner.

The
petition
is,
accordingly,
dismissed."

11. As per law settled by this Court,
in the above mentioned judgments, it is
crystal clear that an application form
received after the last date of submission
can not be treated as valid application form
and no right, based upon the same, can be
claimed by such candidate/ applicant.

12. Relevant part of Condition No. 2
of the notification/advertisement dated
27.10.2020, quoted above, specifically says
that last date of submission of application
form is 30.11.2020. The advertisement/
notification dated 12.05.2021 also says in
the same terms, according to which, the
application form should be submitted by
the applicant on or before 11.06.2021.

13. Condition No. 10 of both the
notification(s)/
advertisement(s)
dated
27.10.2020 and 12.05.2021, respectively, in
clear terms provide that an application form
received after the last date prescribed for
submission of form would be deemed to be
rejected.

14. Besides above, the petitioner
herself filled the application form, as
appears from the copy of application form
annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the petition,
and a perusal whereof particularly Clause
No. 17 of the same shows that this Clause
in
specific
terms
provide
that
the
application if received after the last date
would not be considered.

15.

Considering
the
aforesaid
including the law propounded by this Court
as also relevant part of Condition No. 2 and
Condition No. 10, referred above, this
Court is of the firm view that the
application form of the petitioner was not
valid on the date of publication of
notification/
advertisement
dated
12.05.2021. Issue No. (i) framed above is
accordingly decided against the petitioner.

16. Now coming to Issue No. (ii). A
perusal of condition(s), above quoted,
shows that the same does not provide that
an application, if received after delay, the
applicant would be informed by the
concerned Office. The conditions also does
not provide that the concerned would be
informed about the defect in application
form. Moreover, no other condition or
statutory provision has been placed before
this Court according to which the State
Government was under obligation to
inform the candidate about the defect or
delay in submission of application form.
Thus, submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner on this aspect is rejected.
Issue No. (ii) decided accordingly.

17. Adverting to Issue No. (iii).
Condition
No.
04
of
notification/advertisement
dated
12.05.2021, quoted above, provides that a
candidate who has submitted his/her
application
form
pursuant
to
the
notification/advertisement
dated
27.10.2020, need not to apply again. This
condition, to the view of this Court, says
that a candidate whose application form
was accepted by the Recruitment Agency
need not to apply afresh, however, a
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidate whose application form was not
accepted was required to apply afresh
pursuant to the notification/ advertisement
dated
12.05.2021.
Condition,
under
consideration, does not say that the last
date
mentioned
for
submission
of
application
in
the
notification/
advertisement dated 27.10.2020 has been
extended.

18. It goes without saying that a
candidate should be vigilant in relation to
the filling of application form as also on the
issue as to whether the application form has
been duly received, in time, by the Office
concerned or not, more so, when a
candidate is applying for the post(s) on
which if he/ she is appointed has to decide
a 'lis' between the parties. In the instant
case, to the view of this Court, the
petitioner/ applicant was negligent as the
petitioner
send
her
application
form
through registered post on 27.10.2020
despite of having knowledge of last date
i.e.
30.11.2020,
mentioned
in
the
notification/advertisement
dated
27.10.2020.

19. Thus for the reasons aforesaid, the
interpretation, as suggested by the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
that
the
application form was within time as
subsequent
notification/advertisement
dated 12.05.2021 provides last date of
submission
of
application
form
as
11.06.2021,
which
was
subsequently
extended
to
25.06.2021
vide
notification/advertisement
dated
10.06.2021 would be absurd interpretation
of
Condition
No.
4
of
notification/advertisement
dated
12.05.2021 as this condition does not
provide that the candidature of those
candidates whose application forms were
not found valid/incomplete or received
after last date of submission of applications
in the notification/advertisement dated
27.10.2020, would be considered and they
need not apply afresh nor it says that the
last date for submission of application form
in the notification/ advertisement dated
27.10.2020, has been extended. Moreover,
if the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is taken on its face value,
then in that event, the Condition No. 10 of
the notification(s)/ advertisement(s) in
issue,
quoted
above,
would
become
redundant and this would provide what has
not been provided under the notification(s)/
advertisement(s) in issue. Moreover, this
interpretation would also open a Pandora's
Box and if it happens then in that event the
entire process of recruitment would be held
up. In catena of cases, it has been held by
this Court as also by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that recruitment process should not
be interfered with unless gross illegality or
arbitrariness is shown on the part of the
recruitment agency.

20. For the reasons aforesaid, Issue
No. (iii) is also decided against the
petitioner.

21. As already held that in entire
notification/advertisement
dated
27.10.2020,
pursuant
to
which,
the
application form was submitted by the
petitioner through registered post on
27.10.2020, there is no such condition
which says that a candidate would be
apprised about the defect in the application
form or about the fact that the application
form has not been received within time by
the Office concerned and the application
form of the petitioner was not valid on the
date
of
publication
of
notification/
advertisement dated 12.05.2021, rather as
per legal fiction, the same was rejected as
was received by the Office concerned after
1 All. Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
the last date of submission of application
form as also that the last date for
submission
of
application
form
i.e.
30.11.2020
in
the
notification/
advertisement dated 27.10.2020 was not
extended
in
subsequent
notification/
advertisement, the candidature of the
petitioner can not be considered in ongoing
interview process.

22. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid,
this Court is of the view that the petitioner
is not entitled to the relief sought in the
present writ petition. The writ petition is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A669
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Misc. Bench No.28953 of 2021

Om Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Salil
Tripathi,
Gaurav
Singh,
Krishnat
Tripathi, Ragini Pandey, Shikhar Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Indian
Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 - In the
present
case,
the
petitioner
being
a
complainant fails to establish any legal right
or able to show any breach of statutory duty
on the part of authorities. Thus he has no
locus to prefer the present writ. (Para 9 &
12)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector (2012) 4
SCC 407 (followed)

2. Dharam Raj Vs. St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 2
AWC 1878 (All) (followed)

3. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of Mah.
& ors. AIR 2013 SC 58
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Salil Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing counsel for State-respondent nos.
1and 2.

2. In view of the order proposed to be
passed, notice to respondent no.3 is
dispensed with.

3. This writ petition has been filed
praying inter alia the following reliefs:-

i) To issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action
against the respondent no.3 within a fix
time frame.

ii) To issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 to take effective steps for
compliance of the (Annexure No.1)within
fix period of time.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent no.3 was initially
appointed in the year 1993 in Shri Gandhi
Kisan Inter College, Khadda on the post of