IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 402 of 1995 Date of Decision: July 20, 2011 Jiwan Jyoti ….Petitioner Versus Bhagat Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8874 of 1990 for directing the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and petitioner further prayed that not to terminate her service. Vide order dated 02.05.1994, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition. The relevant part of the judgment is as under:- “For the reasons recorded above the present writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioner under the instructions dated May 26, COCP No.402 of 1995 1987 issued by the State of Punjab de-recognising the aforesaid oriental Training Course of Haryana.” The allegation of the petitioner is that after the decision of the writ petition, the District Education Officer (s), Ropar, vide letter dated 21.07.1994 directed the Management of the D.A.V. High School, Takhatgarh to allow the petitioner to join the school in compliance with the orders of this Court. The District Education Officer (S), Ropar, has also granted approval for the post of Punjabi Teacher in respect of the petitioner in D.A.V. High School, vide order dated 19.12.1994. In view of the orders of the District Education Officer (S), Ropar, dated 21.7.1994 and 19.12.1994, the petitioner submitted her joining report vide Receipt No. 1982 dated 23.12.1994, but she was not allowed to join the school and thus, respondents have violated the orders of this Court. In reply, respondent No.5, Headmaster of the school, specifically averred that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.05.1990 much prior to the filing of the writ petition, and she was relieved on the same day. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed the factum of termination of her services at the time of filing of the writ petition nor pointed out the same at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. Since the petitioner has failed to get the order of termination set aside, therefore, she is not entitled to rejoin the service. 2 COCP No.402 of 1995 From the perusal of the order dated 02.05.1994, it appears that this Court had directed the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioner, whereas, the services of the petitioner has already been terminated at the time of filing of the writ petition. Moreover, there is no rebuttal by the petitioner to the reply filed by the respondents, therefore, no case of contempt of Court is made out. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondents stands discharged. July 20, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3