IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17619 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 29, 2010. Rajwinder Kaur .....Petitioner versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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) The petitioner seeks a mandamus for inclusion of her name in the draw of lots for allotment of plots measuring 125, 150, 200, 250, 300 and 500 square yards in the Aero City, Mohali. The petitioner has admittedly applied for the plots reserved for the category of Freedom Fighters, being the grand-child of the freedom fighter. The terms and conditions contained in the application form provide as under:- “......(viii) In case of Freedom Fighter, the applicant should be recipient of Freedom Fighter pension or Tamra Patra issued by the Punjab Government/Government of India. A C.W.P.No .17619 of 2010 2 self attested photocopy of the certificate issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the District, should be attached with the application form. The following order of preference will be adopted. (i) Self; (ii) Widow of the Freedom Fighter who is drawing the pension; (iii) Freedom Fighter's son/daughter and grandson/grand daughter........” It so happened that the application forms received from the freedom fighters are more than the plots reserved for them. Consequently, the applications received against the priority clauses (ii) and (iii) have been excluded from the zone of consideration as there is first preference to be given to the `freedom fighter applicants'. The petitioner accordingly seeks to include her name in the 'open category' on the plea that the reserved category candidates can always apply for 'open category' plots as well. She relies upon the decisions rendered by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters pertaining to service jurisprudence and admission(s) in the educational institutions. There can indeed be no doubt that in a selection process, be that may for `appointment' to public services or `admission' in the educational institutions, the reserved category candidates possess dual right to be considered for `reserved' as well as `open category' posts/seats. In my considered view, the aforesaid principle cannot be applied in case of draw of lots, where the principle of preference is unknown. Since the C.W.P.No .17619 of 2010 3 petitioner never applied in the 'open category', her name cannot be included in the said category. Dismissed. September 29, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE