Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nachhatter Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 April, 2012
CWP No.7310 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7310 of 2012
Date of decision : 23.04.2012
Nachhatter Singh
...... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
The argument of learned counsel is that originally the petitioner had applied under the ESM Male category but was selected in the General category because he had obtained 60.55 marks whereas the last candidate selected in the general category had obtained 58.91 marks. Thereafter, as a result of decision of this Court the entire merit was re-determined and now the last candidate selected in the general category has more than 64% marks and therefore the petitioner has no grouse on this score. However, as per the learned counsel the case of the petitioner has not been considered in the CWP No.7310 of 2012 -2- Ex-serviceman category probably only because originally he has made it in the general merit. As per the learned counsel, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the Ex-serviceman category.
In this regard, the petitioner has made representation dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure P-10). Learned counsel states that at this stage she would be satisfied if the said representation is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order within any reasonable time. I find this to be a fair request.
In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure P-10) before passing any order adverse against the petitioner. In case it is found that the petitioner was wrongly ignored for being considered as an ESM Male candidate and that the merit he obtained was higher than the last selected ESM Male category candidate he should be offered appointment under the ESM Male category candidate.
( AJAY TEWARI ) April 23, 2012 JUDGE ashish