IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13242 of 2011 Date of decision : 27.07.2011 Vinod Kumar ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. S.P.S Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Issue notice of motion On asking of the Court, Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State. Petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent-department to issue him appointment letter as Primary School Teacher as he has obtained more marks in the General Category whereas the candidates who have scored less marks have been given appointment letters. Respondent-department issued an advertisement No. 2 in September, 2007 for the recruitment of JBT/EET teachers. For the district Amrtisar 1073 posts were earmarked under Code No. 1071. Petitioner's claim to be eligible under the notification and applied for the post. It is alleged that the petitioner got 65.217 marks in the merit list and thus, he was selected under his respective category. The petitioner's case is that he had appeared in the first counseling and his merit was 65.217 and whereas the candidates who are less CWP No. 13242 of 2011 -2- meritorious have been called up till third counseling and the last candidate who was selected was having the merit of 50.506, whereas the petitioner who was more meritorious have been left out (Annexure P-2). The petitioner also received the offer letter dated 29.09.2008 issued by the department and thereafter, he submitted the documents as required by the respondents- department (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was also given the station allotment letter but the petitioner could not join the allotted station as his daughter was very serious and she was undergoing medical treatment and because of these reasons, he could not join the allotted station within seven days time period. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent-department number of times with regard to his genuine grievances. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the State itself decided to consider all such eligible candidates who could not attend the counseling by calling them in a subsequent counseling vide circular dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P-4). It is admitted position that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court of even date passed in CWP No. 7759 of 2011, wherein following observations have been made:- “In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take decision on the representation of the petitioners in the light of govt. circular (Annexure P-3) and orders (Annexures P-7 to P-10), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event the posts are available in the respective categories to which the petitioners belong and they are in the merit they may be appointed. However, if the respondents have to reject the claim of the petitioners, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order”. CWP No. 13242 of 2011 -3- In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment. Petitioner shall be entitled to the same relief as granted in the above referred judgment. July 27, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE