IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5094 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2010. Pankaj Rani Petitioner through Mr. SKS Budhladawale, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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] Notice of motion. Mr. B.S.Chahal, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-affidavit from the respondents. The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint her on the post of Hindi Mistress against the post reserved for the dependents of Freedom Fighters. It is the case of the petitioner that she is fully eligible and on the basis of academic qualifications etc.; she was placed at No. 1 in the Waiting List. Respondent No. 6 [Neeru Walia] was, however, above the petitioner in the main selection list. The petitioner has further averred that respondent No. 6 has been selected as Social Science Mistress also vide appointment letter dated 31.3.2008 [Annexure P-11] and she has already joined as such. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No. 6 is not keen to join as a Hindi Mistress against the post reserved for dependents of Freedom Fighters. If that is so, the petitioner who is stated to be at No. 1 in the Waiting List, appears to be entitled for appointment against the said post of Hindi Mistress. The claim of the petitioner, however, has not been considered by the respondents despite her repeated representations including dated 8.7.2008 [Annexure P-12]. Suffice it to observe that if the afore-stated facts were to be true, there appears to be no legal embargo against appointment of the petitioner as Hindi Mistress. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to immediately consider the claim of the petitioner and do the needful as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Dasti. March 22, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE