CWP No. 17325 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17325 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: September 24, 2010 Kanwaljit Jyoti .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order Annexure P-5 dated 05.08.2010. 2. Gist of the impugned order Annexure P-5 indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Education Service Provider vide letter dated 27.08.2009 on recommendations of Co-ordinator, Departmental Selection Committee (Teaching Secondary Education). 3. It seems that one Kamaljit Kaur approached this Court in a civil Writ Petition No. 16891 of 2008 entitled Kamaljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, on the ground that she (Kamaljit Kaur) had 61.534 merit marks, whereas the petitioner in the present petition namely Kanwaljit Jyoti has only 56.577 merit marks. It seems that it was made evident to the Court that the merit has been disregarded as Kamaljit Kaur had higher merit and in that regard CWP No. 17325 of 2010 2 her claim had been ignored. 4. It seems that the respondents considered the merit list in the context of the select list and found that indeed Kamaljit Kaur had a higher merit having obtained 61.534 merit marks as against the merit marks of the petitioner i.e. 56.577. Kamaljit Kaur accordingly has been selected and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the present petition namely Kanwaljit Jyoti. 5. After giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the category of Ex-servicemen, Dependent General Female category, Kamaljit Kaur who was having a higher merit has been given appointment and vide the impugned order, services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been serving for approximately one year. Equity is in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has served the respondents and did not apply to be employed elsewhere in the meantime. Learned counsel, however, very fairly admits that the merit position of Kamaljit Kaur is higher than the petitioner. It has been admitted that the petitioner was the last person in merit in Ex-servicemen Dependent General Female category. 7. Since Kamaljit Kaur has higher merit than the petitioner, obviously, the petitioner could not have been selected and given offer of appointment. By what means higher merit of Kamaljit Kaur has been ignored, is not known to the Court. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner got employment de hors the lower merit of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that equity is in favour of the petitioner. CWP No. 17325 of 2010 3 8. In view of the above, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Facts and circumstances do not call for judicial review of the impugned action. 9. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 24.09.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?