IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3784 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 04, 2010. Rajni Bala .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sarbjeet Singh Khaira, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to select her as an ETT Teacher against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes and is also dependent of an Ex-serviceman. She applied for the post C.W.P.No .3784 of 2010 2 of JBT/ETT Teacher in response to the advertisement No.2 dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2. Her grievance is that though she had requested the respondents to consider her candidature as a Scheduled Castes candidate in stead of dependent of an Ex-serviceman, the respondents have not acceded to her request and as a result thereto, candidates lower in merit, like respondent No.5, have been selected and the claim of the petitioner has been over-looked. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that even if the petitioner did not make it to the merit amongst the dependents of Ex-servicemen, there appears to be no legal embargo against claiming the benefit of reservation meant for Scheduled Castes category to which she actually belongs. Apparently, the claim of the petitioner requires to be considered by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to look into the claim of the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner is found entitled to, she shall be given appointment within the afore-stated period of three months. Dasti. March 04, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE