KULDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents informs us that petitioner no.1 was awarded 121.02 marks whereas the last candidate, appointed from the same category, to the post of Maths Mistress, had obtained 146.83 marks. In view of the above, it is apparent that the claim raised by petitioner no.1, through the instant writ petition, is mis-conceived. In so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, on the last date of hearing, i.e. 21.03.2007, we were informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that they could not evaluate the merit of petitioner no.2, on account of the fact that the petitioner no.2 had not submitted the detailed marks card, of her B.Ed result. Accordingly, we had directed petitioner no.2 to furnish the detailed marks card of the B.Ed examination to the Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab within one week. LEARNED counsel for the respondents points out that the aforesaid direction of this Court, issued on 21.03.2007, has not been complied with till date.

(2.) IN view of the above, we are satisfied that petitioner no.2 is no longer interested to pursue the instant writ petition. IN view of the above, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.