CWP No.3327 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3327 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2011 **** Rubina Parveen & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to appoint them on the posts of Urdu Teacher (Primary) firstly on the plea that candidates lower in merit like respondents No.3&4 who have got 120.5 and 117.38 marks have been given appointment as against the petitioners who have secured 124.5, 121.8 and 134.13 marks, respectively. Secondly, it is also alleged that respondents No.5&6 who have not even applied, have been given appointment by the official respondents which action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CWP No.3327 of 2011.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioners have raised the claim by way of separate representations to the authorities, placed on record as Annexures P18 to P20 which are still under consideration. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view the fact that the above-stated plea taken by the petitioners requires ascertainment of correct facts by the respondent-authorities, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to verify the facts and in case the petitioners are found entitled to, to give them appointment from the date when the candidates lower in merit were appointed with all consequential benefits except the arrears of pay, as early as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the respondent No.2 is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to be appointed, their claim shall be decided by passing reasoned order(s) within the stipulated period. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 24.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge