IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3780 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 16th March, 2010. Dr. Aradhna Petitioner through Mr. V.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 02.03.2009 [Annexure P-1] whereby she is said to have been denied appointment as Senior Resident and a candidate lower in merit – respondent No. 4 [ Dr. Manmit Kaur ] has been appointed as such. The petitioner is a PCMS Doctor serving in the Health Department, Government of Punjab. She applied for the Senior Residency in the Government Medical College at Patiala in the Department of Blood Bank. The undisputed facts are that the last date to submit applications was 09.12.2008. The petitioner submitted her application, complete in all respects, on 4.12.2008. As per the prescribed format, the application was to be forwarded through the parent Department after counter-signatures. The petitioner accordingly submitted her application to the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner got 57 marks, she was not given appointment as a Senior Resident, as compared to respondent No. 4 who had scored only 51 marks. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. The Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Punjab has come forward with the plea that the application form of the petitioner, duly recommended by the Head of the Department, i.e., the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare was never received and that the application received from the petitioner was the one directly sent by her. Since the case of the petitioner was that she had applied through proper channel on 4.12.2008, i.e., much before the cut-off date, the original records from the two Directorates, i.e., Directorate of Health and Family Welfare and Research and Medical Education, Punjab have been summoned and perused to ascertain the true facts. On a perusal of the original records, learned State Counsel fairly states that the petitioner's application form, submitted on time, was duly counter-signed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare. On the other hand, in their reply, the Directorate of Medical Education and Research has denied the receipt of her application. Counsel for the petitioner points out that on an application moved under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has now been informed that her application form duly counter-signed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare was `received` by the State Government. It thus, stands crystalized from the above noticed events that inadvertently or deliberately, the original application of the petitioner, after it had been counter-signed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, was either misdirected or withheld may be to deprive her from appointment to the tenure post of Senior Resident, despite being higher in merit. Be that as it may, the petitioner can not be allowed to suffer for no fault of her. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Senior Resident on the tenure post in the Blood Bank of Government Medical College, Patiala, forthwith but not later then one week from the date a certified copy of this order is received. For the purposes of completion of Senior Residency, the petitioner shall be treated to have joined the Blood Bank Department from the date when the candidate lower in merit than her, was so appointed. It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to draw the monthly salary of the petitioner from any other Department, though she shall be allowed to work in the Blood Bank Department only but such an arrangement, if any, shall be without causing any inconvenience to the petitioner. The original records have been returned to learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. March 16, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE