IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10734 of 1994 Date of decision: 09.02.2010 Smt. Bhajan Kaur ....Petitioner versus The Punjab State and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents 1 and 2. ---- 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation for the petitioner but I have gone through the records with the able assistance of Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the qualifications set down for consideration of appointment of JBT in the State of Punjab though an advertisement for appointment issued in 1994. The petitioner had grievance about the fact that for persons, who had passed JBT from other States than Punjab, there was a necessity for 6 months condensed course and it should have been completed on or before 28.04.1981. The Civil Writ Petition No.10734 of 1994 - 2 - petitioner had completed the course only on September 1981. According to the petitioner, the requirement through an office order of the Secretary, Education was arbitrary. 3. The petitioner was claiming for a selection to the post as JBT but it bears out through the reply filed by the private respondents that the petitioner had not been left out of reckoning on account of the qualifications criteria, but she had also been interviewed along with the other candidates and being a single open post out of the 42 candidates interviewed, the best available candidate had been selected and the petitioner was not selected in the order of merit. 4. Having regard to the fact that the selection process itself was not in challenge and the challenge to the interview held and the selection made, cannot be sustained in the writ petition. The petitioner has also contended in the writ petition that she belonged to scheduled castes and that the rule of reservation ought to have been applied to her. The contention to this in the reply is that the selection itself was made only for one post and there could not have been a 100% reservation for selection to a single post. The challenge on that ground was also untenable. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.02.2010. sanjeev