Law:

Section:

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---We intend to decide the following Intra-Court appeals by one consolidated judgment having similar facts and law and arising out of the same judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13-6-2001.   1. C.A. No. 606 of  2001.   1. C.A. No. 596 of  2001.   The brief facts out of which the aforesaid appeals arise are that respondent No.2 invited applications for three posts of Assistant Professors in Anatomy in the Health Department of Government of the Punjab through advertisement dated 21-12-1997 published in daily "Nawa-e-Waqt". Respondent No.2 issued call letters to appellant Dr. Neelam Hussain, respondent No. 1 Dr. Razia Parveen Qureshi and three others. Respondent No.2 recommended the name of Dr. Neelam Hussain for appointment against one of the posts in question vide letter dated 18-2-1998 on the basis of the marks she obtained in the interview although appellant and respondent No. 1 secured a total of 69 marks on account of evaluation of the academic record, experience, research papers and the interview. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved filed W.P. No. 4017 of 1998 which was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 11-5-1999. Present appellants being aggrieved filed I.C.A. No. 457 of 1999 and I.C.A. No.455 of 1999 which were accepted by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31-10-2000 and the case was remanded to the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge after remand accepted the writ petition of respondents No. 1 vide impugned judgment dated 13-62001 . Hence the aforesaid Intra-Court appeals.   Learned counsel for the appellants submit that learned Single Judge has misread and misconstrued paragraph 13(b) of the Policy Decision No.21 by awarding 0.5 marks to respondent No. 1. They further submit that if paragraph 13(a) and (b) be read as a whole then para. 13(a) relates to the relevant qualification in relevant field and para 13(b) only relates to additional qualifications. Therefore, learned Single Judge erred in law to award 0.5 marks to respondent No.1 qua diploma in Gynae. They further submit that…