IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8028 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 05, 2010. Gurdial Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners seek quashing of the `corrigendum' dated 6.12.2009 (Annexure P-7) whereby the candidates possessing higher qualifications have also been given opportunity to apply for the post of Assistant Librarian, which was advertised vide advertisement dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P-3). It is also their grievance that the ratio of 50:50 between the male and female candidates, as is provided in the advertisement dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) has not been adhered to while short-listing the candidates for counselling vide list dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-8). Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi versus Union of India and C.W.P.No .8028 of 2010 2 others (2008 (1) SCT 17, to contend that the contents of the advertisement are so sacrosanct that the authorities or even a Writ Court cannot alter the same. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the cited decision. In my considered view, both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are wholly misconceived and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. The original advertisement dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) restricted the eligibility for the post of Assistant Librarian for those candidates only who possess Diploma in Library Science. It was a crude attempt to deprive the candidates possessing higher qualifications from their right to compete in total derogation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The subsequent corrigendum is nothing but an act of rectification whereby right to compete has been restored to those candidates also who ought to have been given such right while inviting the applications. Suffice it to observe that the corrigendum has to be read in continuation of the advertisement and cannot be read in isolation. The other contention that the ratio of 50:50 between the male and female has not been adhered to while preparing the list of candidates called for counselling too deserves to be noticed and rejected. The laudable object behind fixation of the ratio is to ensure effective representation to the female candidates. In my considered view, Article 15 of the Constitution in its true sense permits a female to compete and occupy the post ear-marked for `male category', besides those which are exclusively C.W.P.No .8028 of 2010 3 reserved for them for the simple reason that there cannot be any reservation for `Male' candidates only and the posts falling to their share will have to be treated as open-category posts against whom any one can compete on merit. No interference with the impugned corrigendum dated 6.12.2009 (Annexure P-7) is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. May 05, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE