IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16620 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.09.2011 Binderpal Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Chibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Teaching Fellow on the basis of her alleged merit vide appointment order dated 25.10.2008. Her services were later on terminated as on an enquiry it was found that the experience certificate relied upon by her was bogus and fabricated. The petitioner approached this Court relying upon certain documents, hence a direction was issued to the respondents to verify the genuineness of the petitioner's claim through a fact finding enquiry and take an appropriate decision. An Enquiry Committee headed by the Director, Education Department held the enquiry and again came to the conclusion that the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner is bogus and fake. CWP No. 16620 of 2010 [2] The aggrieved petitioner has again approached this Court. It is true that co-ordinate bench passed an interim order directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda to conduct an enquiry into the genuineness of the certificate submitted by the petitioner. Some report is said to have been submitted by the police authorities pursuant to that direction. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that even if there is a finding favouring the petitioner, the said police report is not to be relied upon for entry of a candidate with doubtful credential to hold the post of a Teacher who must always possess high moral and ethics to pass on the same to future generations. That apart, a writ Court need not travel into the realm of the disputed facts as once an Enquiry Committee comprising three senior officers of the department including Head of the Department had come to the conclusion that the Experience Certificate relied upon by the petitioner was bogus, such a finding ought not to be disapproved. Dismissed. 13.09.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE