IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8675 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.09.2011 Satnam Singh Saini ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents No. 1 to 3. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner admittedly passed out B.Ed. Course from Panjab University on 25.07.2003. He was dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him and sought re-evaluation for which it was mandatory to send the original marks card/sheet to the University. The petitioner's re-evaluation result was declared on 05.03.2004 and his total marks were increased from 677 to 694. During the period when the petitioner had applied for re- evaluation of B.Ed. result, the respondents invited applications for the posts of teaching fellows. The advertisement (Annexure P-4) contained the clause (b) which reads as under:- CWP No. 8675 of 2010 [2] “ (b) One mark for every completed six months will be given to the candidates from the date of declaration of B.Ed. result (maximum 10 marks).” The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for one mark for every completed six months from the original date of declaration of result i.e. July, 2003 when he passed the B.Ed. course or should he be given such marks from March, 2004 when the re-evaluation result was declared ? The petitioner along with his application form had attached the mark-sheet of the re-evaluation result only. The respondents were therefore initially right in granting marks to him in terms of Clause (b) reproduced above on the assumption that he had passed the B.Ed. examination in March, 2004. This is what was precisely conveyed to the petitioner by the District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur vide his reply dated 01.04.2010 (Annexure P-11) to the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had actually passed B.Ed. examination in July, 2003 and the subsequent re-evaluation result has merely increased his total marks, he is entitled to the additional marks in terms of clause (b) of the advertisement from the date of his actual passing of the B.Ed. examination i.e. 25.07.2003. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to re-determine the merit of the petitioner after treating him to be qualified in B.Ed. examination from CWP No. 8675 of 2010 [3] 25.07.2003 and in case he is found higher in merit, to give him appointment from the same date though notionally. This order, however, shall not affect the appointments of respondents No.4 and 5. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) 05.09.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'