IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12477 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 16, 2010 Harmandeep Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Director, Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, and Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee. The petition further prays for CWP No.12477 of 2009 [2] mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner. 2. Perusal of Order Annexure P-7 indicates that the petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.18909 of 2009 claiming eligibility for the post of Teaching Fellow in accordance with terms and conditions provided in Advertisement (Annexure P-1) bearing No.2 of September 2007. The writ was disposed of with direction to the respondents to take decision on the representation of the petitioner. 3. As per Annexure P-7, decision has been taken saying that the petitioner had not attached proof of her being scheduled caste. For non-production of document, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 18.8.2009, the respondents were directed to produce the original record in relation to the petitioner as also comparative merit list. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Manjit Inder, Senior Assistant, Office of Director Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab, states that if the merit marks of the petitioner are determined on the basis of criteria adopted for selection, it becomes evident that the petitioner got 47.90 CWP No.12477 of 2009 [3] marks. The last person selected, as per original record produced in Court, has got 50.912 merit marks in scheduled caste (Ramdassia) category, to which category the petitioner belongs. 6. After considering the fact that as per the criteria adopted by the respondents, the petitioner has not been able to make it to merit, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that let the petition be disposed of as not pressed. 7. The petition is disposed of as not pressed. (AJAI LAMBA) December 16, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?