FILING OF WRIT PETITION

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – II
PSDA

Submitted by
VEDANT GUPTA
Enrolment No. – 02517703521
Semester - 4
Section - K

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 218 OF 2023

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF –

Aarti Sharma
Ground floor, B-212
Aravali Apartments, Alaknanda Road
New Delhi – 110019 …PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Department of Education
Through Directorate of Education
C-4 Lane, Science Centre
Vasant Vihar
New Delhi – 110057. …RESPONDENT

2. Ministry of Education
302-C, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi -110001

UPON SUBMISSION TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THEIR COMPANION CHIEF JUSTICES

OF

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The humble petition of the petitioner named above

 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the petitioner's name is Aarti Sharma, and she is a qualified candidate who
applied for a government job in the Department of Education.

2. Despite fulfilling all the eligibility criteria and successfully clearing the required
examinations and interviews, the concerned government department has unreasonably
delayed issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner submitted her application on January 15, 2023, and received a written
confirmation from the department stating that the appointment process would be
completed within three months.

4. The petitioner has diligently followed up with the department regarding her
appointment but has received no satisfactory response or indication of progress.

5. The petitioner has discovered that several candidates who applied for the same
position after her have already received their appointment letters, further highlighting
the discriminatory treatment she is facing.

6. The petitioner has gathered evidence, including correspondence, application receipts,

and communication with the department, to demonstrate the delay and unfair
treatment she has experienced.

7. The petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available and has approached
the Supreme Court seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the
department to promptly issue her appointment letter.

8. The petitioner contends that the department's unjustifiable delay in issuing the
appointment letter is not only causing her financial hardship but also impeding her
career progression and opportunities.

9. The petitioner seeks the court's intervention to direct the department to expedite the
appointment process and fulfil its obligations in accordance with the established rules
and regulations.

10. The petitioner emphasizes that the delay in her appointment is a violation of her rights
and that issuing the writ of mandamus is necessary to ensure accountability and
fairness in the recruitment process.
 GROUNDS
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The unreasonable delay and discriminatory
treatment in issuing the appointment letter infringe upon the petitioner's fundamental
rights. The right to equality, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, guarantees
equal treatment under the law and Article 16 of the constitution guarantees equal
employment opportunities in matters of public employment. The petitioner's right to
livelihood, protected under Article 21, is also affected by the delay, causing financial
hardship and impeding career progression. By violating these fundamental rights, the
respondent authority's actions warrant judicial intervention to ensure the protection
and enforcement of constitutional guarantees.

2. Breach of Statutory Duty: The respondent authority has a statutory duty to issue the
appointment letter within a reasonable time. However, the unreasonable delay in
fulfilling this obligation constitutes a breach of their legal duties. By failing to adhere
to the prescribed timelines, the respondent authority is acting contrary to the intent
and purpose of the applicable laws and regulations, necessitating court intervention to
enforce compliance.

3. Arbitrary and Unreasonable Conduct: The respondent authority's actions in

unreasonably delaying the appointment letter and providing preferential treatment to
other candidates amount to arbitrary and unreasonable conduct. The principles of
fairness, transparency, and equality dictate that decisions and actions by public
authorities must be guided by rationality and reasonableness. By deviating from these
principles, the respondent authority has acted arbitrarily, warranting judicial
intervention to correct the unfairness and ensure adherence to legal norms.

4. Discrimination and Violation of Equal Protection: The discriminatory treatment faced

by the petitioner, as evidenced by the preferential treatment given to candidates who
applied after her, violates the petitioner's right to equal protection under the law.
Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees equal treatment and prohibits discrimination
based on arbitrary grounds. The respondent authority's actions undermine the
principles of fairness and equality, warranting judicial scrutiny to rectify the violation
and restore the petitioner's right to equal protection.

5. Public Interest: The delay in issuing the appointment letter and the violation of the
petitioner's rights raise issues of public interest. Public interest is concerned with the
welfare and well-being of society as a whole. The petitioner's case highlights broader
concerns related to transparency, accountability, and efficient administration. By
addressing these issues through judicial intervention, the court can promote the
principles of good governance and ensure the proper functioning of public institutions
 in the interest of the public at large.

6. Failure to Provide Adequate Explanation: The respondent authority's failure to

provide a valid and justifiable explanation for the delay in issuing the appointment
letter demonstrates a lack of transparency and accountability. Transparency requires
public authorities to provide adequate information and justification for their actions,
especially when they directly impact individuals' rights. The respondent authority's
failure to fulfil this obligation raises concerns about the fairness and legitimacy of
their conduct, warranting court intervention to ensure transparency and accountability
in the decision-making process.

7. Violation of Legitimate Expectations: The petitioner had a legitimate expectation,

based on the representations made by the respondent authority, that the appointment
letter would be issued within a specific timeframe. Legitimate expectations arise when
individuals reasonably rely on the assurances or commitments made by public
authorities. By failing to fulfil this legitimate expectation, the respondent authority
has breached the petitioner's legitimate rights, warranting judicial intervention to
protect and enforce these rights.

8. Right to Remedy: The petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies
by seeking information and clarification from the respondent authority, but no
satisfactory response or action has been taken. In such circumstances, approaching the
court for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy to seek redress. The right to
access justice and the right to an effective remedy are fundamental rights that ensure
individuals have access to a fair and impartial judicial process to address grievances.
By invoking the writ of mandamus, the petitioner seeks the court's intervention to
compel the respondent authority to fulfil its obligations and provide the appropriate
remedy.
 PRAYER
Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court:

1. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the
respondent authority to immediately issue the appointment letter to the petitioner in
accordance with the prescribed timelines and in compliance with the relevant laws
and regulations.

2. Declare that the respondent authority's unreasonable delay and discriminatory

treatment in issuing the appointment letter violate the petitioner's fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to equality, right to livelihood,
and right to equal employment opportunities.

3. Direct the respondent authority to provide a valid and justifiable explanation for the
delay in issuing the appointment letter, as well as for the discriminatory treatment
faced by the petitioner, in order to ensure transparency and accountability in the
decision-making process.

4. Order a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the delay in issuing
the appointment letter and the preferential treatment given to other candidates who
applied after the petitioner, to determine if there has been any malfeasance or abuse of
power by the respondent authority.

5. Award appropriate compensation and relief to the petitioner for the financial hardship,
mental agony, and career stagnation caused by the unreasonable delay in issuing the
appointment letter, as well as for the violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.

6. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the
circumstances of the case to ensure the protection of the petitioner's rights, uphold the
principles of fairness and equality, and promote the public interest.

The petitioner humbly requests this Hon’ble Court to consider the grounds and prayers stated
herein and to provide the necessary relief and redress in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND
EVER PRAY

PETITIONER
Aarti Sharma

THROUGH COUNSEL
Advocate Ramesh Rana
Lexygen Law Associates
D-106, Drona Marg, Shiniwas Puri
Block D, Defence Colony Filed on: 6th March, 2023
New Delhi - 110024 Place: New Delhi