IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6363 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.4.2009. Krishna Devi --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 8.9.2003, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher pursuant to the selection made by the competent authority in the year 2001. Earlier she was working on ad hoc basis since 1995. It is alleged that on 10.8.2002 petitioner received a verbal information that her services are being terminated and an order in this respect had already been issued on 27.7.2002. Petitioner filed CWP No. 12716 of 2002 and the same came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.7.2003, whereby a direction was issued to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Consequently the case of the petitioner has been considered by the respondents and the impugned order came to be passed, which is under challenge in the present petition. CWP. No. 6363 of 2009 -2- The appointment of the petitioner has been set aside primarily on the ground that the petitioner has secured the appointment on a fake qualification. It is specifically stated that the petitioner has allegedly acquired the qualification from the Bihar Pradesh Siksha Parishad, Bihar. In order to verify the validity of the certificate an official was deputed to Bihar and on verification it was found that the certificate is fake one and no such institution with the name of Bihar Pradesh Siksha Parishad is in existence in the State of Bihar. On that basis the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the persons with the same qualification from the said institution are still working. She has referred to respondents no.5 & 6, who are said to be working with the same qualification. It is settled law that the doctrine of equality as envisaged under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution is a positive concept and cannot be applied in a negative manner. No relief can be granted to the petitioner because some persons under the similar circumstances are working. This petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent-State is however directed to examine the certificates of respondents no.5 and 6 and if, on enquiry it is found that they have also acquired the qualification from the same institution, which is found to be fake, the respondents will pass appropriate order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the said respondents and by observing the principle of natural justice. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.4.2009 lucky