IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16305 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.1.2010. Baljit Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Surmukh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.4 nor any counter- reply is required to be filed by the official respondents at this stage. The petitioners belong to the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. They seek a mandamus for their C.W.P.No .16305 of 2009 (O&M) 2 appointment to various teaching posts in the Education Department, Punjab. Their precise grievance is that some of the candidates of Scheduled Caste and Backward Class categories, who have got higher marks than the last candidate of General Category appointed, have not been considered/treated as open category candidates, leaving space for appointment of other next reserved category candidates in order of their merit. In sum and substance, the petitioners' grievance is that while offering appointments to the reserved categories candidates, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and others versus Union of India and others, 1993 (1) RSJ 1, have not been adhered to. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length or from the material placed on record, though it is difficult to find out any specific instance where a candidate belonging to the reserved category and higher in merit than the general category candidate, has not been treated in the open merit, yet there can indeed be no dispute that the principle of law canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, has to be adhered to by the respondents while giving appointments. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take cognizance of the grievance of the petitioners as contained in the legal notice dated 10.7.2009 (Annexure P- 11) and decide the same as early as possible but not later than 4 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the respondents find that there are candidates of reserved categories C.W.P.No .16305 of 2009 (O&M) 3 who have got marks more than the last candidate of the general category, such reserved category candidates shall be treated in the general category and subsequential appointments shall be offered to the next candidates in order of merit. Disposed of. Dasti. 19-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE