IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3810 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4.3.2010. Manju --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. In response to the advertisement dated 30.6.2007 for the post of Junior Mistress (Cutting, Tailoring, Embroidery & Needle Work), the petitioner applied for selection/appointment. The appointment was to be made on contract basis. It is alleged that out of 39 posts, 6 posts were for B.C-A category. The petitioner applied under the said category claiming that she belongs to the caste Darji, which is one of the notified castes under B.C-A category. The petitioner was put in the waiting list under category B.C-B and has not been selected. It is stated that the petitioner applied under the RTI Act and it was only when information was supplied to the petitioner under the said Act that she came to know that she has been put in B.C-B category instead of B.C-A category. It is alleged that only 5 CWP. No. 3810 of 2010 -2- candidates have been selected under B.C-A category and the petitioner is entitled to be selected. She has already served a legal notice (Annexure P-8) in this regard but no decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the legal notice served by her. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 4.3.2010. lucky