By the Court.—Heard Sri Manoj Kumar (Sharma), learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal questions the correctness of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant’s claim for quashing the order dated 13th November, 2007 passed by the Director of Education rejecting her representation for giving appointment as an Assistant Teacher on the strength of special B.T.C. 2004 training has been rejected.

3. The learned Single Judge after traversing the facts came to the conclusion that the very application form of the appellant was not received and available, and that she had been successful in getting training utilizing a similar name of another selected candidate. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition after recording a finding, that the conclusion drawn by the Director of Education in the impugned order was correct and was based on a proper appraisal of facts on record.

4. At the very outset, we may refer to the findings recorded by the Director of Education in the order that was impugned before the learned Single Judge where it has been categorically stated that one Monika Bhati D/o Jagdish Singh Bhati was a successful candidate under the general category and her application form was entertained against control number-2100431. The entry in the records of the said form of the daughter of Jagdish Singh Bhati referred to her correct parentage and further that she was a candidate of the general category with a different date of birth.

5. Since the name of the appellant is identical therefore her name was erroneously transmitted by the Regional Level Enquiry Committee, on the strength whereof the concerned institution issued the list containing the name of the appellant. It is undisputed that the parentage of the appellant is different and she is the daughter of Jagan Singh Bhati with a different date of birth. It is also undisputed that the appellant is of the other backward category whereas the above mentioned candidate who had been selected was of the general category.

6. It is no doubt true that the respondents do not dispute the fact that the appellant had obtained higher quality point marks as against the last candidate of the other backward category, but at the same time their stand is that the appellant had not applied and her application form was not received or available before the last cut-off date of applications which is 15th March, 2004. As a matter of fact no application at all was received as stated in the affidavit of the respondent.

7. In order to meet this stand of the respondents the appellant came up with a case that her application form had been received and it was on the strength thereof that the Regional Level Committee had evaluated the grievance of the appellant and had forwarded the name for being included in the list of training for 2004, Special B.T.C. Session. In order to substantiate this claim the appellant herself has filed the receipt of the deposit that was to be made for the purpose of entertaining the application form. A photostat copy of the same is annexed as Annexure 1 to the appeal and which records the date as 2nd June, 2004. On the same date the speed post receipt is also stated to have been issued as against the said application form dispatched by the appellant.

8. In our considered opinion these very documents of admission having allegedly dispatched the application form on 2nd June, 2004, which is obviously after the last cut-off date of 15th March, 2004, establishes beyond doubt that the appellant has not even applied before the last cut of date prescribed.

9. Secondly, there is no evidence to the effect that the said envelop which had been dispatched did actually contain the application form.

10. Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was the said application form which was assessed and this is the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit both before the learned Single Judge as well as