Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 29 August, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17741 of 2014
Date of decision: 29.08.2014
Darshan Singh ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider and grant the petitioner the promotion on the post of Auction Recorder against vacant post against backlog vacancy under the Scheduled Caste category in terms of instructions issued by respondent no. 2 vide circular dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-20) alongwith all consequential benefits.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he had joined the services of Market Committee, Amloh as Electrician on 05.08.1988 on regular basis and thereafter, the post was converted to that of a Clerk and he was absorbed in pursuance to Resolution No. 11 dated 28.07.1988 and submitted his joining report against vacant post against Scheduled Caste category. He also qualified the type writing test, which was the requirement. The Board annulled the resolution and the dispute is subject matter of CWP No. 9415 of 2012, in which interim order was passed on 18.05.2012. As per Appendix B and Rule 8 of the Punjab Market Committees (Class-III) Service Rules, 1989, Clerks are liable to be Gupta Shivani 2014.09.02 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh promoted on the post of Auction Recorder. It is submitted that two posts of Auction Recorder are lying vacant due to promotion of Chamkaur Singh and Raj Rani and the petitioner made a representation dated 07.03.2013 followed by reminders dated 03.01.2014, 18.04.2014 and 16.07.2014. Reference is also made to various instructions in favour of the petitioner for filling up the backlog vacancies. The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P-19) but no action has been taken on the same.
Counsel submits that he would be satisfied if a time bound direction is given to the respondents to take action on the said 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. 2 to take into consideration the representation dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P-19) and pass necessary orders on the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case the petitioner is found entitled for his claim, the same be granted to him within a period of one month thereafter. In case relief is to be denied to the petitioner for whatsoever reason including the pendency of litigation, a speaking order be passed which shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
29.08.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani
2014.09.02 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh