ORDER 1. By placing reliance on the maxim Actus curiae nemine facit injuriam it has been vehemently contended by Shri D.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that this maxim should not only be extended for the Courts but may also he extended to the Administrative authorities. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the pregnability of impugned order Annexure P-7 dated 7th September, 2002 by which the candidature of the petitioner who was duly selected on the post of "Female Attendant" has been rejected on the ground that the police verification and other connected documents were received late in the office of the respondents. 3. It is no more in dispute that vide Annexure P-6 dated 7th September, 2002 the petitioner was selected on the above said post. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 11.9.2002 the petitioner reported in the office of respondent' No.3. Thereafter it was directed that police verification of her be made. The contention of learned counsel is that the petitioner put all her efforts to get the things done, but since it was not in her hands to get the police verification done at an early date, therefore, merely it was made later on, she cannot be punished for the act of others. 4. On going through the return filed by the respondents particularly para 3 it is gathered that on account of the receipt of the character verification certificate etc. from District Magistrate. Jabalpur which was received late in the office of the petitioner, she was not appointed. It he seen that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the said act. As soon as she received her selection letter Annexure P-6 dated 7th September, 2002, she immediately reported to the authorities of the respondents. Thereafter, the hall was not in her Court and if any delay was made in regard to he police verification, she cannot he blamed thus the above said quoted maxim Actus curiae nemine facit injuriam is fully applicable in the present case and for no fault of the petitioner she cannot be penalized and punished by not giving the appointment. In the return, no where it has been stated that in place of petitioner some other candidate has been appointed. In the return, no where it has been stated that in place of petitioner some other candidate has been appointed. This Court on 24.2.2005 passed an interim direction that if any appointment is made, it shall be subject to the decision of this writ petition. In the return no where it is gathered that in place of petitioner anybody else has been appointed. True, merely a candidate is selected on a particular post, would not confer any right in him/or to ask for appointment, but, in the present case when the petitioner submitted all which was required to he done by her, she cannot be denied for appointment. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Female Attendant in pursuance to her selection letter Annexure P-6 dated 7th September. 2002. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.