IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.2482 of 2011 Date of Decision:07.12.2011 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rimplejeet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the action of the respondents in not preparing separate merit list for the male and female candidates in respect of 1436 posts of English Masters/ Mistresses, which is contrary and violative of Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 (for short, `the 1978 Rules') and also contrary to the previous advertisements dated 12.1.2010 as well as 14.1.2010 issued by the same authority whereby ratio of 50:50 has been prescribed for male and female candidates out of total advertised posts. Notice of motion was issued on 10.2.2011. In response thereto, reply has been filed, which is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was no condition in the advertisement that the common merit list would be prepared for male and female candidates. Subsequently, a public notice dated 17.1.2011 was issued whereby general category candidates with cut off merit 53.5 were called for counselling. It has further been argued that no separate merit list for male and female category candidates has been prepared in the ratio of 50:50 as has been done previously in terms of Rule 3 and as such the petitioner, who belongs to general category has been deprived of his right in terms of proviso to Rules 1978. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have changed the earlier criteria for selection and instead of making selection on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in the basic educational qualification, a written test has been prescribed to make selection, which is totally illegal and unlawful. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment in C.W.P.. No.12275 of 2000 – Neelam Rani v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 8.1.2010. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the decision in Neelam Rani's case (supra), the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in that case. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the decision in Neelam Rani's case (supra), the present petition is dismissed. December 07, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE