IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1288 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.01.2011 Kanchan ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Mr. Puneet Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. **** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice. Keeping in view the nature of claim and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage without insisting for reply. Applications were invited through the advertisment No. 2/2006 for filling up 2614 posts of teachers i.e. Hindi Master/Mistresses, out of which 500 posts were meant for Female Backward Class Category. The petitioner is claiming appointment against the post of Hindi Mistress under Female Backward Class Category in the present petition. On completion of the selection process the merit list was published and the last selectee for the post of Hindi Mistress, Female Backward Class Category was shown, to have secured 67.083 marks. After scrutiny of the documents the eligible candidates were called for interview, the petitioner being one of them. The selection list was published in the newspaper dated 4.12.2006, CWP No. 1288 of 2011 -2- wherein petitioner's name was not listed amongst selectees. The petitioner applied under the RTI Act seeking information about the merit of the selectees. Information supplied under RTI Act, reveals that the petitioner has secured 116.98 marks, whereas the last selectee one Mrs. Anupam has secured 115.88 marks for the post of Hindi Mistress. Since the last selectee in the list has lesser merit, the petitioner served the respondents with a legal notice (Annexure P-3). Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if, respondents are directed to take decision on the notice served by the petitioner, referred to above. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be done by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) 25.01.2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)