Civil Writ Petition No. 12485 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12485 of 2011 Date of decision:-19.7.2011 Suman Thakur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Notice of motion. On asking of Court Mr. Gazi Mohd. Umair, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply copy of petition to State Counsel today itself during the course of the day. Petitioner has sought direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letter as Primary School Teacher. The petitioner is having 66.145 marks in the merit list in general category. Grievance of the petitioner is that the last candidate, who was selected in the third counseling secured 62.045 marks in the merit list. The petitioner has appeared in the first counseling, which was held on 19.3.2008. The petitioner could not join on the place of posting at Amritsar vide appointment letter dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) as the same was not communicated to her by registered post. She procured the same while visiting the office of the District Education Officer, Amritsar and by that time seven days time had gone. The controversy involved in the matter is squarely covered by a Civil Writ Petition No. 12485 of 2011 -2- judgment of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No.7759 of 2011 decided on 03.5.2011, wherein following observations were made :- “In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to take decision on the representation of the petitioners in the light of Govt. Circular (Annexure P-3) and orders (Annexures P-7 to P-10), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event the posts are available in the respective categories to which the petitioners belong and they are in the merit, they may be appointed. However, if the respondents have to reject the claim of the petitioners, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order.” In view of the above, this petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment. Petitioner shall be entitled to the similar relief as granted in the above referred judgment. July 19, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE