CWP NO.4661 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 25.3.2009 Suman Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of this Court, Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. With the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. In response to the advertisement notice No.2/06 published on 27.10.2006, the petitioner applied for the post of Science Master. A number of candidates applied for the posts advertised. The selection was to be made on the basis of the academic merit, as per the criteria notified. It is alleged that the petitioner has secured 60.95 marks whereas respondents no.4 and 5 secured only 59.38 and 58.96 marks, respectively. All the selectees were appointed, except the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that even CWP NO.4661 OF 2009 2 though he has been selected, but he has not been appointed whereas the private respondents with lesser merit stand appointed. The petitioner has made a representation dated 27.8.2008 (Annexure P-14), but no decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to take a decision on the representation (Annexure P-14). In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner and if the contention of the petitioner is found to be correct i.e. he is higher in merit than the selectees and there is no legal impediment, the petitioner shall be issued the appointment order. It is also clarified that in such an eventuality, the petitioner shall be entitled to the seniority on the basis of merit in the selection list. Though he will not be entitled to monetary benefits, but his pay shall be fixed by giving him notional benefits of increments and pay revision, if any. Needless to say, in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, it shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. Let the entire exercise be done within three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order by respondent no.2. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25.3.2009 MFK