IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 7194 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.4.2010. Sobha Devi --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aditi Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. 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. Under the policy of the Haryana Govt. for engagement of the Guest Teachers, the petitioner and two other persons applied for the post of Guest Teacher. Three candidates including the petitioner and one Mukesh Kumari appeared in interview on 8.11.2007. The petitioner had a higher merit but ignoring the petitioner Mukesh Kumari was engaged as a Guest Teacher. The petitioner made a detailed representation (Annexure P-3). The Director General, School Education on examination of the representation of the petitioner ordered an inquiry and terminated the services of Mukesh Kumari finding that the petitioner had better merit. Even the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Principal who engaged Mukesh Kumari. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that CWP. No. 7194 of 2010 -2- despite her better merit, she has not been engaged. Petitioner has made a detailed representation (Annexure P-6) for her engagement as Guest Teacher but no decision has been taken thereon by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner, referred to above. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner and consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.4.2010. lucky