IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2959 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 17, 2011. Ratna Gupta .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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) The petitioner seeks a mandamus for her appointment to the post of Math Mistress on the plea that in the final merit list, she has been placed at Sr.No.145 and the candidates lower in merit including the one placed at Sr.No.173, have been given appointment. The petitioner appears to have been denied appointment on the ground that she was two months' older than the prescribed age, whereas, the petitioner contends that the age has to be seen on the cut off date for submission of the applications, i.e., 1.1.2010. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Dharamvir C.W.P.No .2959 of 2011 2 versus State of Haryana and another, 1996 (1) RSJ 296 The petitioner has further pointed out that one Manjula Gupta born on 13.5.1973, namely, older than the petitioner, was selected for the post of Science Mistress and she has already been given appointment. On this premise, the petitioner alleges discrimination. It is also alleged that despite representations including dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure P-8), no action is being taken by the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and keeping in view the averments noticed above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to verify the above made assertions of the petitioner and dispose of her claim by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. In case the respondents find that the petitioner is also entitled to be appointed, the needful shall be done within the stipulated period. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. February 17, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE