IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3213 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.07.2011 Sunil Kumari and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No. 3. RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3213 of 2011 (Sunil Kumari and another versus The State of Haryana and others), 3309 of 2011 (Anju Kadian versus The State of Haryana and others), 3292 of 2011 (Santosh Devi versus The State of Haryana and others), 3290 of 2011 (Deepshikha Duhan versus State of Haryana and others), 3215 of 2011 (Smt. Savita versus State of Haryana and others), as the common question of fact and law arose in the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 3213 of 2011. Notice of motion, in these cases, has been issued. Mr. Mehtani has already accept notice in all the cases. The prayer made in these petitions is to the effect that the petitioners had been wrongly declared unqualified for interview for the post of Lecturer Civil Writ Petition No. 3213 of 2011 -2- whereas the candidates of General category, who have secured less marks, have been declared qualified for interview for the post of Lecturers. This issue has been considered in detail while deciding CWP No. 767 of 2011 titled as Preeti versus State of Haryana and another. Vide its order dated 24.05.2011, this Court had already issued direction to the Commission in such like matters. The writ petitions have been allowed and the respondents have been directed to apply the principles of reservation as determined by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12275 of 2000 and re-determine the list of candidates to be called for interview. This exercise is to be concluded by the respondents and intimation is to be given to all the candidates, who are now in the zone of consideration for the selection. Certain directions have also been given in the case where there is some overlapping. The candidates, who are to be excluded are also to be intimated like others. It is conceded before me that the issue arising in the present petitions is squarely covered by the decision in Preeti's case (supra). Accordingly, all these writ petitions are allowed in the same terms. July 13, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE