IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18989 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 Pawandeep Kaur etc. ---Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab etc. ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Two sets of complete paper book be furnished to her during the course of the day. The issue involved in this petition was also an issue in CWP No. 922 of 2008, which has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 30.9.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench passed the following directions:- “ In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the petitioner has been illegally denied consideration for selection and appointment as lecturer in English in B.C category in violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure P.12) and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer in English, being higher in merit than respondents CWP No. 18989 of 2007 (O&M) -2- No.3 to 5. The respondents shall displace the candidate(s) lowest in merit in Backward Class category. Respondents, shall however, be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidate(s) against other vacancies, if available. The petitioner shall be entitled to notional service benefits with effect from the date the candidate lower in merit than her was appointed. It is further clarified that if in the process of appointment of the petitioners in the aforesaid connected writ petitions, appointment of already appointed candidates is to be cancelled and such candidate(s) was/were not impleaded as respondents in the connected writ petitions, then their appointment(s) shall be cancelled after following due process of law. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidates against any posts lying vacant. All the writ petitions stand allowed in the above terms.” This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. Ms. Tuli submits that State intends to file SLP against the aforesaid judgement. It is made clear that any direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall also be applicable to this case. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.3.2009 lucky