IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12696 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 24, 2009 PARVEEN BALA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DK Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing memo dated 5.8.2009 (Annexure P-3) vide which the respondents have proposed to dispense with/terminate the services of the petitioner under the garb of directions from National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi. A perusal of memo dated 5.8.2009 (Annexure P-3) indicates Civil Writ Petition No. 12696 of 2009 2 that 200 posts of Lecturers in Punjabi were advertised. 100 posts were to be filled up from men and 100 posts from women. Out of 200 posts, 20 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes. 10 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes (Mazbi and Balmiki) and 10 posts were to be filled up from amongst Scheduled Castes (Ramdasia and others), as per Government instructions. The persons from the category of Scheduled Castes (Mazbi and Balmiki) made a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes on the ground that the seats that fell to their quota had not been filled up. On the contrary, persons from Scheduled Castes (Ramdasia and others) category had been given more than their share. It seems that, on the asking of the Commission, the Education Department conducted an inquiry, whereupon prima facie, it was found that, indeed, the reserved posts of Lecturer in Punjabi were filled up from Scheduled Castes (Ramdasia and others) category in excess of their quota and, therefore, there has been violation of provisions applicable in that regard. So as to adjust the persons from Scheduled Castes (Mazbi and Balmiki) category, the persons from Scheduled Castes (Ramdasia and others) category, who were lower in merit and in excess of quota, were required to be given a show cause notice for dispensing with their services. While giving out all these facts, notice has been given to the petitioner vide memo (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has been asked to submit her defence in the matter, in writing. It transpires that the petitioner has already given interim reply, which has been placed on Civil Writ Petition No. 12696 of 2009 3 record as Annexure P-5. I am of the considered view that the memo (Annexure P-3) is only a show cause notice giving out the reasons for which the services of the petitioner are liable to be dispensed with. The petitioner has been given an opportunity to show reasons otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition to file a better petition or to file a petition, if an order adverse to the rights of the petitioner is passed. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. August 24, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?