(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Mayur S. Barot, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. An advertisement was issued in the year 1998 for appointment of 'Mukhya Sevika' in Village Panchayats as well as in Municipal Corporation. One of the conditions was that those candidates who had completed 10 years as 'Anganwadi' worker, were eligible. The appellant had completed 10 years' service and therefore, she applied for appointment to the post of 'Mukhya Sevika' in terms of the advertisement in the year 1998. The call letters were issued but no call letter was issued to the appellant and therefore, the appellant made representation in the year 1998 itself as to why call letter has not been issued to her. No reply was given to the appellant, however, the appellant came to know from other source that since the appellant had not attested the Experience Certificate, either herself or certified by some other officer required to attest the certificate, therefore, her application form was rejected and she was not issued call letter. Thereafter, the appellant kept silence.
2. Some other candidates challenged the procedure adopted in the examination that after the advertisement, the respondents have added written test criteria also, which as per the terms of the advertisement, only interview was to be held. The said writ petition filed by other candidates was allowed in the year 2010 and written examination was set aside and it was directed that only interviews be held. Thereafter, interviews were held by the respondents and result was declared and the appellant's result was not declared as her application was rejected being not according to the advertisement. The appellant filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as action of the respondents have been challenged by the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that in the year 1998 itself the appellant had made an application to the respondents as to why call letter has not been issued to her and since the respondents did not give any reply, therefore, at that time, she could not file a writ petition and only after the learned Single Judge issued Notice in the year 2012, the respondents have informed that the appellant's application was rejected in the year 1998 itself as she had not submitted the Experience Certificate, which was duly attested.
4. It is well settled that an application has to be conformed with the terms of the advertisement and if the application is not in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, such application is liable to be rejected. Since, the last date was over in the year 1998 and the appellant came to know about this fact in the year 1998 itself, at that time, she should have filed the writ petition challenging the action of the respondents and rejection of application. After about 14 years, she can not challenge the order of rejection. Moreover, the application of the appellant was not submitted in terms of the advertisement and therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the application of the appellant.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in the appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed along with Civil Application.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren