High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sabarjeet Verma And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 12773 of 2005  RD-AH 5137 (3 March 2006)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12773 Of 2006
Tauqir Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
The counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the array of the parties.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sought certain informations as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition from the respondents namely, as to on what basis and rules the selection of other candidates have been made and what is lacking in him inspite of the fact that the Interview Committee was satisfied with his performance. If the selection committee was satisfied the petitioner would have been selected. The Court is not in the shoes of the Selection Committee whether the performance of the petitioner was good or what was lacking in him, as he was not selected.
At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner prays that the representation of the petitioner dated 10.2.2006 may be directed to be decided by respondent no.2, the Secretary, Vidyut Sewa Ayog, U.P. Power Corporation, Ltd. Lucknow, U.P. within a time bound frame.
The standing counsel has no objection to this prayer.
In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10.2.2006 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before respondent no.2 within two weeks from today.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.