IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10038 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.05.2011 Dr. Anita Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kohal Dev, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Having made mention to his qualifications which the petitioner possess, it is stated that the petitioner has worked with various institutions as part time Lecturer from 2003 to 2006 and has performed to the satisfaction of the employers. A post of lady Lecturer was advertised on 07.10.2006 by S.D. Mahila Mahavidyala, Narwana (Jind), Haryana. The petitioner applied for the same being fully eligible. She was called for the interview, which was held on 06.12.2006. 26 candidates appeared for the interview. The petitioner was recommended by 7 members of the selection committee and was ranked as top. The Nominee of the Commissioner Higher Education, however, as per the allegation wanted to select Ms. Santosh Kumari, who was not in the merit list. The nominee endorsed a remark “I disagree”. This recommendation was sent by the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner but the Civil Writ Petition No. 10038 of 2008 -2- same was not approved solely on the ground that Dr. R.N. Gupta, nominee of Higher Education Commissioner had not agreed with the recommendation. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to impugn this action of the respondents. Though the reply has been filed and the claim made in the writ petition is seriously contested but Mr. R.K. Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision in CWP No. 10027 of 2009 Dr. Subhash Chander Lohan Versus State of Haryana decided on 23.11.2010, where the action of the respondents in denying appointment after selection in this manner has been quashed. Copy of the judgment has been placed on record. The issue being squarely covered by the decision in Subhash Chander Lohan's case (supra). The present writ petition would also deserve to be allowed. It is so ordered. To be fair to the State counsel, he has mentioned that the department had taken a decision to file SLP against this order but no SLP so far has been filed. That would not be a valid reason not to follow the precedent. The writ petition is allowed in terms of order passed in CWP No. 10027 of 2009 Dr. Subhash Chander Lohan Versus State of Haryana. May 27, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE