The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Government to file a comprehensive and detailed reply explaining why the result of the examination conducted for the recruitment to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Female) was not published. Justice Sandeep Moudgil observing that non-publication of the result would vitiate the entire selection process.The direction by Justice Moudgil came while hearing two connected writ petitions filed by Jasvir Kaur and other petitioners against the State of Punjab and other respondents. At the onset, Punjab Director, Health Services (FW), Dr Aditi Salaria, admitted before the court that “no merit list or result was ever published indicating the marks obtained by the candidates who participated in the examination” for the post of MPHW (F), pursuant to the advertisement dated September 25/26, 2023.Recording the submission, Justice Moudgil specifically asked the State to explain the reason for non-publication of the result. “The State is called upon to file a comprehensive detailed reply, explaining the reasons as to why the result of the above-said recruitment process was not published, which would result in vitiating the whole selection process.”Justice Moudgil, during the course of hearing, took note of the contention regarding candidates belonging to reserved categories. The petitioners contended that certain reserved-category candidates had secured marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the general category and ought to have been considered against general-category posts.Justice Moudgil also recorded the petitioner’s contention that “the entire selection process has been undertaken de hors the legitimate claim of such candidates belonging to the reserved categories” who ought to have been considered against general-category posts if they had secured marks higher than the prescribed general-category cut-off.Taking into consideration the submissions, Justice Moudgil issued notice of motion to the State and other respondents. Accepting the notice, the State counsel sought time to file a written statement. Before parting with the order, Justice Moudgil that “the State may file a reply seven days prior to the next date of hearing with an advance copy supplied to the counsel for the opposite party.”On the State’s request, Justice Moudgil deferred the hearing of the matter to September 1.