CWP No.18987 of 2002.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18987 of 2002 Date of Decision: 10.03.2010 **** Raminder Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . 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? **** Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure P9), whereby, her claim for appointment to the post of Science Mistress has been rejected. She also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint her on the above mentioned post on the premise that she is higher in merit and the candidates lower in merit have already been appointed. CWP No.18987 of 2002.doc - 2 – (2). Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit/reply and in para 14 thereof, they have taken a categoric stand to the following effect:- “14. That in reply to this para No.14. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither selected nor recommended by the Selection Committee, to the appointing authority. It is denied that candidates lower in merit have been selected and higher merit candidates have been ignored. No violation of the articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been by the respondents. Whereas the Vidhan Sabha Committee report has already been filed by the Govt. of Punjab vide its letter No.5/66/99-2Edu.-2/6465 dated 26.03.2002 which is appended as Annexure R1.” (3). The petitioner has neither furnished the particulars of the candidates allegedly lower in merit nor a comparative list of their inter se merit is mentioned in the writ petition. Moreover, the candidates who are said to be lower in merit have not been arrayed as party-respondents. (4). In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Science Mistress. The desired writ, therefore, cannot be issued. (5). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.18987 of 2002.doc - 3 – 10.03.2010 vishal shonkar