IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15320 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 01, 2010. Asha Rani and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Dr.M.L.Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only at this stage. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.4 and/or to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the official respondents to issue appointment letters to them on the basis of their alleged higher merit amongst the Backward Class (female) candidates selected for appointment to the posts of SS Mistresses. The first petitioner seeks yet another direction to the official respondents to treat her in the category of Backward Classes (female) instead of Scheduled Caste C.W.P.No .15320 of 2009 (O&M) 2 (Mazbi). Suffice it to observe that the petitioners have averred that they belong to Chimba and Lohar castes, which are notified as backward classes in the State of Punjab. It is their case that they have secured 73.33% and 70.68% marks respectively in the category of Backward Classes (female) selected for appointment as SS Mistresses, yet they are said to have been deprived of appointment in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Petitioner No.1 has further alleged that though she belongs to Chimba caste which is a Backward Class but has been erroneously treated as a candidate of Scheduled Caste (Mazbi). Having heard counsel for the petitioners at some length and considering the fact that the assertions made by them rest upon verification of the facts, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioners as contained in the writ petition and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that in case the claim asserted by the petitioners is found to be correct, the consequential follow up action shall be taken within the afore-stated period. Disposed of. Dasti. 01-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE