IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15460 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 BINDU SOOD ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AS Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. PC Goyal, Addl.AG, Punjab. . AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order (Annexure P-5) vide which benefit of refixation of pay has been denied to the petitioner. Prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus has also been made to refix the pay of the petitioner at par with the persons appointed along with the petitioner and having lower merit in the selection list. It has been pleaded that the State of Punjab through respondent No.3 issued advertisement No.3 on 12.1.1996, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Masters/Mistresses in Civil Writ Petition No.15460 of 2009 2 different subjects. The petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification of B.Ed. as on 15.2.1996 i.e. the last date for submission of applications. The petitioner and others, however, became eligible before 30.10.1996 i.e. the extended date, vide Corrigendum issued on 17.10.1996 and, therefore, such persons applied for the post of Punjabi Masters/Mistresses. Interview letters were sent to the eligible candidates. In the year 1997, the result of the interview was declared, for which the petitioner and other candidates had appeared. The petitioner, along with other candidates, was declared successful in the category of General Candidates. It has been pleaded that although the petitioner and other candidates were declared successful, however, they were not allowed to join services on the ground that they were not qualified for appointment as they did not possess the requisite qualification. Writ petitions came to be filed in this court, which were dismissed. Appeals were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in challenge to the judgment of the High Court, which were allowed. In compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, appointment letters were issued. The petitioner, however, was not allowed to join services. Persons, who were lower in merit to the petitioner as per the selection process, were however, made to join the services. In the meantime, the said persons earned increments. Be that as it may, the petitioner was allowed to join services at a later stage. The increments and seniority, however, were not given to the petitioner in the context of other persons, who were junior to the petitioner in the selection Civil Writ Petition No.15460 of 2009 3 list. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 19832 of 2003 (Charan Dass Sharma v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 9.7.2004. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Shri Shashi Garg, Law Officer, Office of Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, states that vide order dated 16.4.2010, notional pay of the petitioner has been fixed, considering the seniority of the petitioner. The seniority and other such benefits have also been granted to the petitioner. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, this petition is disposed of as infructuous. In case, the petitioner has any grievance left in the context of the prayer made in this petition, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation with the respondents, which is required to be decided within a period of three months of its filing. In case, the petitioner is still aggrieved, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court. September 15, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?