IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1745 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 03, 2010. Dr.Navpreet Kaur Sidhu .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Mandeep K.Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, 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. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner was one of the applicants for 212 posts of Medical Officers (General) advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission but she was not selected. Aggrieved, she has approached this Court. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that as per the selection criteria, duly mentioned in the advertisement dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), a candidate is entitled to the award of C.W.P.No .1745 of 2010 (O&M) 2 additional marks for higher qualifications. However, as per the information received by the petitioner under the RTI Act vide memo dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure P-10), the total marks awarded to her are 62.73 which includes 19.63 marks for the basic qualification and 44.10 marks in viva-voce. The petitioner, on the other hand, has done the Post Graduate Diploma in Gynecology and Obstetrics (Annexure P-4) and is said to have appended the requisite certificate alongwith the application form for which no marks are awarded to her. Suffice it to observe that if the petitioner is awarded three more marks for the afore-stated higher qualification, her total marks would increase to 66.73 which, according to the petitioner, will put her in the main selection list. The specific factual plea raised by the petitioner, therefore, requires verification by the Recruiting Agency, namely, the Punjab Public Service Commission. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to verify the afore-noticed factual assertion and in case found to be correct, to rectify the error, if any regarding awarding of total marks to the petitioner. However, if respondent No.2-Commission is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the selection or for the award of marks for the higher qualification, her claim shall be decided by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. Dasti. 03-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE