IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1125 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.01.2010. Rajinder Parshad .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sukhdev Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 at this stage. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no legal necessity to issue notice to respondent No.3 nor there is any necessity to seek counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the official respondents to appoint him to the post of Science Master against the reserved post of Backward Class Category (Male). The petitioner's precise grievance is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P-1), he has been selected and has got 67,79% marks in the overall assessment. On the other hand, respondent No.3-Gulzar Singh, who C.W.P.No .1125 of 2010 (O&M) 2 is also stated to be a Backward Class candidate, has got 66.65% marks. The afore-stated assertion is sought to be supported with the merit list (Annexure P-7 & P-8). The petitioner's further case is that the candidate lower in merit has been appointed but no appointment has been offered to him. The petitioner is said to have represented the authorities followed by a legal notice dated 12.12.2009 (Annexure P-11) but without any response. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I am of the considered view that the factual assertion made by the petitioner needs to be verified by the respondent-authorities. If the facts that the petitioner is higher in merit and the candidate lower in merit has been appointed, were correct, the claim of the petitioner for appointment also deserves to be considered. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner as contained in the legal notice dated 12.12.2009 (Annexure P-11) and in case it is found that the candidate lower in merit than the petitioner in Backward Class Category (Male) has been appointed, the petitioner shall also be offered appointment by protecting the seniority, however, without paying any back wages etc. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. Dasti. 22-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE