Inclusion in a merit list does not confer a legal right to appointment, and a merit list cannot remain valid for an indefinite period.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:

"a. Quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No. 8 to the post of TGT Maths in Dhanpatmal Virmani Sr. Sec. School, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007 vide minutes of the Staff Selection Committee dated 25.08.2017 (Annexure-P1).

b. Direct the respondent No. 1 to 6 to appoint the petitioner to the post of TGT Maths in Dhanpatmal Virmani Sr. Sec. School; Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007 with all consequential benefits.

c. Direct the respondent No. 7 to cancel the Degree of MA Maths of respondent No. 8 as the same is obtained by playing a fraud with the University.

d. Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the peculiar circumstance of the case in interest of justice may also please be awarded."

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the decision by the respondent whereby her selection to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, Maths (hereinafter "TGT Maths"), at the respondent school was not confirmed.

3. It is submitted that one post of TGT Maths was vacant at the respondent school, pursuant to which advertisement for the application of the said position was published on 15th October 2016. The petitioner applied for the said advertised post regarding TGT Maths.

4. It is submitted that out of 58 candidates who applied for the said position 13 candidates were found eligible for interview. It is further submitted that only 6 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for the interview on 25th August 2017, including the petitioner and respondent no. 8. Subsequently, respondent no. 8, Ms. Pooja was declared selected vide minutes of the Staff Selection Committee dated 25th August 2017, for the said post.

5. It is submitted that as per the merit list, respondent no. 8 scored 1st rank, Ms. Ashu Rani scored 2nd rank and the petitioner herein scored 3rd rank.

6. It is further submitted that a Writ Petition bearing W.P (C) No. 1160/2018 was filed by Ms. Ashu Rani, who was one of the participants appearing in the interview and stood second to respondent no. 8 in the merit list, for selection to the aforesaid post. Ms. Ashu Rani, the petitioner therein alleged that the degree of Masters in Mathematics held by the respondent no. 8 is fabricated and there is interpolation of marks given in the interview to the respondent no. 8. It was contended by the petitioner that since, the respondent no. 8 is not qualified; her appointment is illegal and invalid. It is submitted that respondent no. 8 was awarded 7.4 marks for her MA Degree which stands null and void as her degree was forged and fabricated. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07th February 2018 in the said petition, disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction to the respondent no. 4 to conduct an inquiry regarding the same.

7. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the inquiry was conducted by respondent no. 4. The petitioner herein requested the respondent school to supply her copy of the Inquiry Report. The same was out rightly denied by the respondent school and vide their reply dated 31st May 2018, stated the reason that, since the matter is pending for adjudication before this Court, they cannot supply with the Inquiry Report to the petitioner.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a notice dated 18th June 2018 to the respondents and a reminder letter dated 13th July 2018. The respondent did not respond and the petitioner was left with no choice, had to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.

9. It has been further submitted that, Ms. Ashu Rani submitted her No-Objection letter dated 02nd August 2018 to the petitioner stating and declaring that she is not interested in her appointment to the said position at the respondent scho