CWP No.1646 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1646 of 2008 Date of Decision: 03.05.2010 **** Jujhar Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P9), whereby, their claim for appointment to the post of ETT Teachers, has been declined. The petitioners’ grievance is that the respondents have not prepared the merit list in accordance with Rule 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Primary Teacher (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2006. (2). Upon notice, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit controverting the claim of the petitioners and have relied upon a decision dated CWP No.1646 of 2008.doc - 2 – 13.11.2006 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.10994 of 2006 titled as Mandeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (Annexure R1), wherein, on interpretation of Rule 11 ibid, the criteria for preparation of the selection list based upon the inter-se-merit of the candidates, was laid down. (3). It is not in dispute that the impugned merit list has been prepared by the respondents strictly as per the criteria laid down in Mandeep Singh’s case (supra). That being so, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P9). (4). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 03.05.2010 vishal shonkar