IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.A. No. 12 of 2011 (O & M) in CWP No. 11945 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 30, 2011 Gurpreet Kaur .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for applicant-respondent no. 4. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. It has been pleaded that in the order under review, applicant- respondent no. 4 has been shown at Sr. No. 14 in the list of persons who had been transferred viz. Annexure P-7. Respondent no. 4 in fact has not been mentioned in the list of persons transferred in Annexure P-7. 2. In reference to Annexure P-7, I find that indeed respondent no. 4 (review applicant) has not been mentioned. It, however, remains a fact that the petitioner and the private respondent are both working as part time lecturers. 3. Be that as it may, in view of error that is found apparent on the face of the record. The order dated 14.12.2010 is recalled and CWP No. 11945 of 2010 is restored to its original number. 4. Let the writ petition be listed as per Roster. 30.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?