IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6257 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 28, 2009 Reena Gupta & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Municipal Council, Phillaur & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocte, for the petitioners. Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment against vacant posts of Primary Teachers. Learned counsel has tried to develop a case that the petitioners, in response to advertisement dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-3), CWP No.6257 of 2007 [2] applied to be appointed to the post of Primary Teachers (ETT) in Municipal Council, Phillaur. It is the admitted case that the petitioners were not selected and were placed in waiting list. The details of the case are not required to be referred in so much as the claim of the petitioners is confined to the prayer that the petitioners being in waiting list and posts being available, they be considered for appointment. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 i.e. Municipal Council, Phillaur, has taken a firm stand that no post is available against which the petitioners could be considered or appointed. It has been brought out that the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Phillaur, had issued appointment order of seven persons on 28.12.2006 as per the selection made by the Selection Committee on 22.12.2006 as per the reservation policy. Four of the persons who were offered appointment, did not join and therefore, the persons highest in merit as per their category, were taken from the waiting list and given appointment. All the seven posts have been filled up. It is the admitted case that no person, lower in merit as compared to the petitioners has been appointed. CWP No.6257 of 2007 [3] Learned counsel for the respondent has further drawn the attention of the Court towards Resolution dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure R-1/1) to contend that no post is available and therefore, it is the pleaded case on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners cannot be considered for appointment. In view of the fact that petitioners have not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any person who is lower in merit and yet has been appointed, I find that no right of the petitioners has been violated. In view of the above, no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 28, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?