IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 19643 of 2006 Date of Decision: 6.2.2009. Ajay Kumar Bhogal ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ---Respondents 2. CWP No. 20563 of 2006 Rattan Lal and another ---Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab. ---Respondents 3. CWP No. 19141 of 2007 Daulat Ram ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ---Respondents 4. CWP No. 19359 of 2007 Surinder Kaur ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab etc. ---Respondents 5. CWP No. 8226 of 2008 Jagmohan Singh ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents 6. CWP No. 18387 of 2008 Ravinder Kaur ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents 7. CWP No. 19724 of 2008 Sharda Rani ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CWP No. 19643 of 2006 -2- 8. CWP No. 20088 of 2008 Harjeet Singh ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents 9. CWP No.20105 of 2008 Radha Rani ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents 10. CWP No. 20141 of 2008 Jarnail Singh and others ---Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents 11. CWP No. 16560 of 2008 Ranbir Kumar ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents 12. CWP No. 15400 of 2008 Om Parkash ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents 13. CWP No. 18343 of 2007 Shankar Lal ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate. Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate. CWP No. 19643 of 2006 -3- Dr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate. Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate. Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate. Mr. S.R. Kamboj, Advocate. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The issue involved in all these petitions was also an issue in CWP No. 922 of 2008, which has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 30.9.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench passed the following directions:- “ In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the petitioner has been illegally denied consideration for selection and appointment as lecturer in English in B.C category in violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure P.12) and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer in English, being higher in merit than respondents No.3 to 5. The respondents shall displace the candidate(s) lowest in merit in Backward Class category. Respondents, shall however, be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidate(s) against other vacancies, if available. The petitioner shall be entitled to notional service benefits with effect from the date the candidate lower in merit than her was appointed. It is further clarified that if in the process of appointment of the petitioners in the aforesaid connected writ petitions, appointment of already CWP No. 19643 of 2006 -4- appointed candidates is to be cancelled and such candidate(s) was/were not impleaded as respondents in the connected writ petitions, then their appointment(s) shall be cancelled after following due process of law. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidates against any posts lying vacant. All the writ petitions stand allowed in the above terms.” These petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. Ms. Tuli submits that State intends to file SLP against the aforesaid judgement. It is made clear that any direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall also be applicable to these cases. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.2.2009 lucky