CWP No.11802 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11802 of 2009 Date of Order: 27.10.2009 Ms. Sunita ...Petitioner Versus Punjab & Haryana High Court and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent No.2. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,3 & 4. Mr. Pawan Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.5. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J The petitioner has made twofold prayers in the petition; firstly he has prayed that Rule 4(c) of the Haryana Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules 2007 (for brevity “Rules 2007”) be declared violative of Article 14 & 16 (1) of the Constitution and against the public policy. A further prayer was made for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.3 & 4 to furnish the information asked by the petitioner vide application dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P.5). Still further, it has been stated that appointment be given to the petitioner by quashing order dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure P.4) vide which her appointment was cancelled. In pursuance of directions issued by us, the answer sheets of petitioner Sunita, respondent No.5-Mahipal and Sachin Chawla belonging to General Category have been produced in a sealed cover. On our asking, the seal is broken by the Bench Secretary. We have examined the answer CWP No.11802 of 2009 #2# sheets and find that the marks given to the petitioner, respondent No.5 and one Sachin Chawla belonging to general category are as per the stand of respondent No.3 in para 2 of the written statement. Having heard learned counsel, we find that basis of withdrawal of appointment letter was a bonafide mistake in the calculation of marks. The petitioner had, in fact, secured 59.5 marks whereas she was shown to have secured 69.5 marks as against Sh. Sachin Chawla, who has actually secured 81.5 marks where he was shown to have secured 71.5 marks. Likewise, respondent No.5 is mistakenly shown to have secured 67.5 marks whereas he had secured 69.5 marks. It was on account of the aforesaid mistake that adjustment was made giving appointment to more meritorious person. On account of error, more marks were shown to be awarded in favour of the petitioner and that appointment letter was issued to her. Accordingly, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant petition. The prayer with regard to challenge to the validity of Rule 4(c) of Rules would be rendered academic and the same may have to be tested in some appropriate case. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The Bench Secretary has re-sealed the answer sheets. The same has been handed over to Sh. Karminder Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1,3 & 4. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE October 27, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE