Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lakhveer Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 May, 2013

Author: Augustine George Masih

Bench: Augustine George Masih

CWP No. 11156 of 2013                                                1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH.
                                      CWP No. 11156 of 2013


                                      Date of Decision : May 22, 2013
Lakhveer Singh
                                                   ....   PETITIONER
                          Vs.

State of Punjab and another
                                                   ..... RESPONDENTS



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH



Present :     Mr. R.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate,
              with Ms. Maninder, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.


AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that despite he having been selected on the reserved post of Computer Faculty under the Backward Class Ex-Serviceman (Dependent) category, has still not been issued the appointment letter.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the public notice dated 03.12.2011, petitioner applied for appointment under the Dependent of Ex-Serviceman Category, for which 91 posts were reserved. In the merit list, petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 157, which was a combined merit list for all categories. In the Backward Class (Ex-Serviceman) Category, CWP No. 11156 of 2013 2 petitioner was much higher in merit. All the 91 posts specified and reserved for the Ex-Serviceman Category have not been filled as such. Despite the petitioner having been called for counselling and thereafter, for choosing/opting the station for his posting, which the petitioner attended on 04.05.2013, appointment letter to the petitioner has not been issued whereas similarly placed candidates have already been issued appointment letters.

Highlighting this grievance, petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-10) to the Director General of School Education, Punjab-respondent No. 2, which has, till date, not been responded to.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Director General of School Education, Punjab-respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-10) submitted by the petitioner within some specified time.

In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner and without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Director General of School Education, Punjab- respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-10) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.




                                     (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
May 22, 2013                                  JUDGE
pj