IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 9478 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.5.2011. Gurinder Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself without insisting for the reply. Petitioners are aggrieved of the Public Notice dated 21.5.2011 (Annexure P-3), whereby all those candidates who were considered eligible for the appointment to the post of P.T.I, who applied pursuant to the Advertisement dated 21.10.2006, have been asked to appear for fresh counselling between 23.5.011 to 27.5.2011. In view of the judgement of High Court dated 27.7.2010 in case of Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others passed in CWP No. 451 of 2008 and other connected matters. Candidates with higher qualifications of B.P.E/B.P.Ed/D.P.Ed/M.Ed were also considered eligible. From the impugned order it is evident that earlier when the advertisement was issued in the year 2006 inviting applications for the posts CWP. No. 9478 of 2011 -2- of P.T.I only those candidates who had qualification of 10+2 and two years course of C.P.Ed were considered eligible. A number of petitions came to be filed before this Court. In Manjit Singh's case (supra) this Court declared the candidates with higher qualifications also eligible. On that basis all those candidates who had applied with higher qualifications are required to be considered for their appointment against the posts of P.T.I. Thus, merit of the candidates is to be re-determined. It seems that under the above circumstances the public notice has been issued. However, one thing is disturbing in the notice that the public notice has been published in the local newspaper on 21.5.2011 and dates for counselling have been fixed from 23.5.2011 to 27.5.2011 continuously. The candidates are required to bring the proof of their having applied in the year 2006 in C-dec. The contention of the petitioners is that the time granted for fresh counselling is totally inadequate and seems to be a farce exercise with a view to deprive some of the selectees from their right of effective consideration. There is substance in the contention. The respondents have issued a notice dated 21.5.2011 and the dates for counselling are also fixed during the course of the week itself without providing sufficient opportunity to all the candidates to appear for counselling and also to furnish proof of their having applied in the year 2006. Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1. The Public Notice dated 21.5.2011 is hereby quashed. If, any counselling has been conducted pursuant to the aforesaid public notice, the same shall stand cancelled. CWP. No. 9478 of 2011 -3- 2. Respondent no.2 shall issue a fresh public notice allowing at least two weeks time to the candidates to appear for counselling from the date such public notice is published in at least three newspapers namely (i) The Tribune, the english daily (ii) Punjab Kesri in Hindi and (iii) Ajeet in Punjabi. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 26.5.2011. lucky