IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10494 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 28, 2010. Veer Pal Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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. Mr.B.S.Chahal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure P-9) whereby her appointment as Teaching Fellow in the Government Elementary School, Bazigar Basti, Doda, District Muktsar, C.W.P.No .10494 of 2010 2 has been cancelled and her services were dispensed with on the ground that experience certificate produced by her is found to be bogus. On the other hand, the petitioner's grievance is two-folds. Firstly he submits that the experience certificates is genuine and secondly, it is urged that even if the marks for the `experience' are excluded or not awarded to her, still the petitioner makes to the selection list. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case has already been settled by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11111 of 2009 (Parminder Kaur versus State of Punjab and others), decided on 18.3.2010. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the assertions made on her behalf, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that let the petitioner represent to the authorities alongwith the material in support of her plea that the `experience certificate' relied upon by her is genuine and/or she is otherwise entitled to be given appointment. The said representation(s), if any, shall be considered by respondent No.2 in the light of the above cited decision of this Court in Parminder Kaur's case (supra) , within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. May 28, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE