IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18371 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 27, 2011. Ramandeep Sharma .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Navin Chowdhri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, 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. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let two copies of the writ petition be handed over to the learned State counsel during the course of day In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks a mandamus for implementation of the order dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby his Excellency the Governor of Punjab has recommended for implementation of the order C.W.P.No .18371 of 2010 2 passed by the Lok Pal, Punjab on a complaint made by the petitioner whereby the respondents were directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Clerk. On a perusal of the orders dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P-11), 14.1.2009 (Annexure P-13) and 26.5.2010 (Annexure P-14), it appears that the respondents themselves have taken a conscious decision to implement the directive issued by the Lok Pal, Punjab, which has since been approved by the Governor of Punjab under Section 16 of the Lok Pal Act. It was pursuant to the said decision that one Seema Rani has been appointed as Orthalmic Assistant in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab. The petitioner's case is that even though similar directive has been issued by the Lok Pal, Punjab in his case also and which has been approved by the Governor of Punjab vide order dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P-5), yet the respondents have taken no steps to implement the said directive. According to the petitioner, this action of the respondents does not stand on the touch-stone of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner in this regard has approached the respondent-authorities vide a representation dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P-12) but without any response thereto. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of C.W.P.No .18371 of 2010 3 a Clerk pursuant to the directive issued by the Lok Pal, Punjab which stands approved by the Governor of Punjab also. While considering the claim of the petitioner, the competent authority shall keep in view the order passed by the authorities in the case of Seema Rani. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. January 27, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE