IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 9779 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 16, 2009 BALWANT KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms.BPK Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Principal, Government High School, Buttar Dhardeo, District Amritsar to allow the petitioner to join her duties as Sweeper in Class-IV category, with effect from November, 2005, in pursuance of order dated 7.11.2005. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was working as part-time Sweeper in Government Elementary School, Bagrian, District Amritsar. The case of the petitioner was considered for regularisation in accordance with the guidelines and instructions issued by Civil Writ Petition No. 9779 of 2008 2 the Government of Punjab. The petitioner, however, was not considered because she was not appointed through Employment Exchange or upon advertisement. The petitioner filed CWP 14246 of 2003 in this Court. Vide order dated 8.11.2005, it was observed that the case of the petitioner was covered by judgment dated 23.9.2002 delivered in CWP 12199 of 2000 (Smt. Sukhdev Kaur v. State of Punjab) and the case of the petitioner be also considered in the light of the same. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the details of the case need not be referred to in so much as the petitioner had already crossed the age of superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.9.1988. The petitioner had herself sworn an affidavit on 12.6.2004 that she was born on 8.9.1928. The petitioner was inadvertently allowed to continue to work. Copy of the affidavit has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the aforementioned facts. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 14, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?