CWP No. 21107 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 21107 of 2008 Date of decision: December 17, 2008 Jagdish Kumar --- Petitioner Versus Director of Education Department & others ---- Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. BS Makar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as a Teacher Fellow. He has also sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.8.2008, whereby his representation for appointment as Teaching Fellow has been rejected. The grievance of the petitioner is that he applied for the post of Teaching Fellow in the Scheduled Castes category. However, he was not selected as he was not granted 5 marks for having completed his 8th & 10th classes from a rural area. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. It appears that the petitioner earlier preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 7359 of 2008, seeking the same relief. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5-5-2008, whereby a direction was given to the respondents to decide representation of CWP No. 21107 of 2008 2 the petitioner within a period of two months. Resultantly, order, Annexure P11 was passed by respondent No.1 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his case was not covered by instructions dated 6-3-2008 and he could not be given 5 marks as he had completed his 8th & 10th classes from rural area falling outside the State of Punjab. After perusing the impugned order, we find no legal infirmity with the same. Admittedly, the petitioner completed 8th & 10th classes from Government Higher Secondary School, Mala Rampura ( Rajasthan). The instructions upon which reliance has been placed have been issued in respect of the State of Punjab. Thus the same are applicable only to the candidates, who have acquired their requisite qualification from rural areas situated within the State of Punjab. For this reason, respondent No.1 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner has referred to Memo. No. 1/44- 07-4 Education 7/5772 dated 6-3-2008, wherein rural area has been described as area falling within Punjab and Union Territory. We are thus of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction as the petitioner has admittedly obtained the requisite qualification from a rural area not situated within the State of Punjab or Union Territory. He is thus not entitled to the benefit of 5 marks meant for candidates who have studied in rural area. The writ petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge December 17, 2008 `ask'