Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 August, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16396 of 2014
Date of decision: 19.08.2014
Rajbir Singh ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Ms. Bandana Dogra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus calling for the records of the case and issuing directions to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure P-10) and reconsider the case of the petitioner and appoint him as Draftsman (Civil) as the petitioner fulfills the criteria as per advertisement (Annexure P-1) issued by respondents no. 2 to 4.
The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had applied for the above said post and a written test was held on 26.05.2013 and he secured 65.25% marks and was included in the merit list issued by the respondent wherein, he was shown at Sr. No. 6. On 23.08.2013 (Annexure P-3), a letter was also received asking him to appear in the office of respondent no. 2, Chief Administrator, HUDA on 06.09.2013. The petitioner thereafter appeared on the said date and the originals were kept in the office but he was not appointed and thereafter had to apply for the return on 30.10.2013. It is alleged that similarly situated persons had been appointed and his Gupta Shivani 2014.08.22 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh candidature was rejected on the ground that AUTO-CAD certificate which he had attached and submitted was not ISO 9001 certified.
Counsel submits that representation dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-5) alongwith the said certificate issued on 10.04.2010 (Annexure P-6) by ISO-9001 certified institute namely the Research Institute of Computer Technology, Kapurthala has been submitted to respondent no. 3 for the necessary relief and the said representation is still pending. A legal notice has also been issued on 10.06.2014 (Annexure P-
10) and he would be satisfied if a time bound direction is given to the respondents to take action on the said representation and legal notice.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner and in view of the facts summarized above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served if notice of motion is issued upon the respondents to call upon them to file the reply in view of the limited relief which the petitioner is seeking.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3 to take into consideration the representation dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-5) and legal notice 10.06.2014 (Annexure P-
10) and pass necessary orders on the same within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case the petitioner is found entitled for his claim, the relief be granted to him within a period of one month thereafter. In case relief is to be denied to the petitioner, a speaking order be passed which shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
19.08.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani
2014.08.22 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh