IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.10891 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:17.05.2011 Balwinder Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. Sikh Educational Society, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Present:- Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagneshwar Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mrs. Hema Kakkar, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. **** Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of order dated 23.5.2008 Annexure P-6 passed by respondents, i.e., Sikh Educational Society Chandigarh – respondent No.1 and Guru Gobind Singh College for Women, Sector-26 – respondent No.3 vide which the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Computer Science on regular and permanent basis stand terminated without complying with the principles of natural justice. During the course of hearing, it has transpired that the termination of the petitioner came into effect because of a Division Bench judgement of this Court in CWP No.5581 of 2006 decided on 16.5.2008 titled as Gurpreet Kaur v. Sikh Education Society and others. It has been observed by the Division Bench that appointment of the petitioner was subject to the decision in the writ petition bearing C.W.P. No.5581 of 2006 and her non-impleadment in the writ petition would not make any difference as the appointment would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendense. Petitioner C.W.P. No.10891 of 2008 (O&M) -2- had thereafter filed a review application but the same was not entertained, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner, to raise all the pleas which may be available and were raised in the review application in the present writ petition which the petitioner had already filed on the day when the review application was heard and decided, i.e., 23.10.2009. Earlier, this Court had on 11.5.2011 heard the case in detail and was of the opinion that the petitioner could not be given appointment on the post she was selected as that post was not available for her selection in the light of the writ petition preferred by Gurpreet Kaur- respondent No.7 which was allowed by this Court. However, a direction was issued to respondents No.1 to 3 to verify as to whether there was no aided post or any other post available of Computer Lecturer in any of the institutions run by the Society. Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has placed on record the details of the computer teachers working in various institutions run by respondent No.1 and on the basis of those details, he submits that none of the posts are available on which the petitioner could be accommodated. In the light of the above facts, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was duly selected by the respondents in pursuance of an advertisement issued by them, in case in future any vacancy arises, the claim of the petitioner be also entertained sympethetically in case the petitioner applies for the said post. Disposed of with the above observations. May 17, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) renu JUDGE