IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9249 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 19, 2010. Harpreet Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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) Notice of motion. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner applied for selection to the posts of ETT Teacher (Teaching Fellow) under the Backward Class Reserved Category. It appears that though the petitioner was offered appointment vide order dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) but she has not been given posting despite several representations and lastly vide order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure C.W.P.No .9249 of 2010 2 P-4), the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the `experience certificate' produced by her has not been found to be genuine after enquiry. The petitioner's grievance is two-folds. Firstly she submits that the `experience certificate' is genuine and secondly, even if the marks for the `experience' are excluded or not awarded to her, still the petitioner makes it to the merit list. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case has already been settled by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11111 of 2009 (Parminder Kaur versus State of Punjab and others), decided on 18.3.2010. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the assertions made on her behalf and the reasons given in the cited decision, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that let the petitioner represent to the authorities alongwith the material in support of her plea that the `experience certificate' relied upon by her is genuine and/or she is otherwise entitled to be given appointment on merit. The said representation(s), if any, shall be considered and disposed of by respondent No.2 in the light of the observations made in Parminder Kaur's case (supra) , within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. May 19, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE