IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1746 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 31, 2011. Gurmail Singh .....Petitioner versus The Secretary to Govt. of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Saggu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. -.- 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. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Let three copies of the writ petition be handed-over to her during the course of day. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, neither any notice is required to be issued to respondent Nos.4 & 5 nor any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 to 3 is needed at this stage. The petitioner was appointed as an Education Worker (Sikhia Karmi) by the Village Education Development Committee vide resolution dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P-1). C.W.P.No .1746 of 2011 2 It appears from the said resolution that no other candidate was considered while giving appointment to the petitioner. Vide the impugned resolution dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner's appointment has been cancelled with a direction that fresh selection be made on the basis of merit. The petitioner apprehends that under the garb of making selection on merits contrary to the Government Policy/Instructions dated 29.11.2004, the candidates outside the village are likely to be considered. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The respondents are duty bound to strictly follow the Government Instructions dated 29.11.2004 (subject to their further revision by the Competent Authority) while appointing the Educational Workers. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Since the petitioner is resident of the same village, it is directed that his claim shall also be considered by the Authorities while making fresh appointments. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. January 31, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE