COCP No.1937 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1937 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 22.9.2009 Amandeep Kaur and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Mrs. Harcharanjit Kaur Brar, DPI ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Dr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.23972-C of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1937 of 2008 The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the respondent has disobeyed the judgment dated 13.8.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No.19688 of 2006 whereby the respondents were directed as under: “Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners, at the threshold of consideration, were ousted from consideration in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to direct the respondent authorities to consider and determine the comparative merits of the petitioner(s) without quashing selection of any of the selected and appointed candidates. If the petitioners are found more COCP No.1937 of 2008(O&M) 2 meritorious than the candidates appointed in their respective categories, the petitioners shall be appointed forthwith with effect from the date the candidates lower in merit was/were appointed, with continuity of service and notional service benefits only. If in the process of such appointments of the petitioners, the appointment(s) of already appointed candidates is to be cancelled, then the same shall be done after following due process of law. Respondents, shall however, be at liberty to accommodate them against any posts lying vacant. Ordered accordingly.” In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, speaking order dated 21.9.2009 has been placed on record by Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the respondent. According to the aforesaid speaking order, claim of the petitioners No.2, 4 , 5, 7, 8 and 9 has been accepted and they have been given the appointment letters (attached with the speaking order), whereas the claim of petitioners No.1, 3 and 6 has been rejected. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab on instructions from Mr. G.S. Grewal, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of School Education, who is present in Court, states that wherever the appointment letters have been issued to the petitioners in pursuance of the speaking order passed, the said appointment(s) would become effective from the date the candidates lower in merit were appointed, with continuity of service and notional service benefits only. In view of the aforesaid fact and the assurance given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State, I am not inclined to proceed further in the present contempt petition. COCP No.1937 of 2008(O&M) 3 Disposed of . Rule discharged. However, petitioners No.1, 3 and 6 will be at liberty to challenge the speaking order dated 21.9.2009 in accordance with law. September 22, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE