CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17421 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Lady Constable Rajesh Kumari .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner, a lady Constable, enrolled in Haryana Police on 20.8.2001, is presently serving at District Gurgaon. Making reference to the amended provisions of Punjab Police Rules relating to detailment on B-1 course, the petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the order, rejecting her claim for selection in B-1 course for the year 2006-2007 under 35% quota. As per the averments, 2 seats were allotted to District Gurgaon by the Director General of Police in 55% quota for the year 2007 and 1 seat for 35% quota. The petitioner could not qualify on the basis of competition for detailment under 55% quota and would pray for being considered under 35% quota, which regulates the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17421 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: detailment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in this regard, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation filed by her. The said representation has been rejected. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition, seeking direction for quashing this order and for her detailment primarily on the ground that she should be detailed against seats meant for the year 2007 and for this purpose, the criteria of 31 marks introduced could not be applied to the case of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, her case was to be considered with effect from 1.1.2007 whereas the requirement of 31 marks was introduced through instructions dated 6.2.2007. In response to specific query by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner conceded that no constable junior to the petitioner was detailed for B-1 course from her District. There was only one vacancy and the petitioner could be validly considered on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The petitioner can make grievance, if any person junior to her was so detailed. That being not the position, the issue of applicability of 31 marks criteria to determine the seniority-cum-fitness, even if applied, would not make any material difference. The persons have obviously been detailed as per the seniority, against which the petitioner really can not make any grievance. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE