IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8363 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 07, 2010. Rajinder Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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) The petitioner was appointed as a Teaching Fellow vide appointment letter dated 4.11.2008 (Annexure P-7). Her appointment has been cancelled and services dispensed with vide the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-9) on the premise that the experience certificate submitted by her at the time of her recruitment, has been found to be bogus on being verified. The petitioner denies the above stated allegation and has asserted that the `experience certificate' appended with the application form was in fact returned to her as it was not counter-signed by the Prescribed Authority. She asserts that her selection is purely on the basis of her merit without any marks for the `experience certificate'. She has placed C.W.P.No .8363 of 2010 2 reliance on a communication dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P-10) sent by the District Education Officer (E.E.), Tarn-Taran to the Director Public Instructions (E.E.), Punjab, the relevant contents whereof reads as follows:- “Smt.Rajinder Kaur, Teaching Fellow has requested vide her representation submitted in this office that she has been given the appointment purely on the basis of her merit and she did not avail any benefit of her experience certificate and rural area. The record of the concerned applicant has been examined and it is being clarified that the concerned Teaching Fellow has not been given any mark for experience certificate and rural area at the time of counseling. Her merit on the basis of her educational certificates is 46.406. The said employee was posted at G.E.S. Khadoor Sahib No.2, Her serial No. in the notice issued in the newspaper is 4.” Despite the above-stated clarification given by the District Education Officer (E.E.), Tarn Taran, the order terminating services of the petitioner has not been recalled. The representation of the petitioner is stated to be still pending consideration. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the above-mentioned communication dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P-10) sent by the District Education Officer (E.E.) to the Director, Public Instructions (E.E.), Punjab, coupled with the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11111 of C.W.P.No .8363 of 2010 3 2009 (Parminder Kaur versus State of Punjab and others), and take an appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. Dasti. May 07, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE