Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESH KUMAR & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajesh Kumar & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-932-2007 [2007] RD-P&H 561 (18 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 932 of 2007

Date of Decision : 22.01.2007

Rajesh Kumar and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others. .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.

Present : Mr. R.K. Chopra, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the fact, that respondent nos. 4 to 22, who were all awarded marks lower than the marks assignable to the petitioner in terms of the merit criterion depicted in the advertisement dated 04.03.2006/27.05.2006, have been favoured with orders of appointment, whereas the petitioners despite their higher position in the merit list have been denied the same. In order to seek redressal of their grievances, the petitioners are stated to have addressed a representations dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-9) to the respondents.

However, it is pointed out that no decision has been taken thereon till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states, that the petitioners will be satisfied, if the instant writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.2 i.e. the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, requiring him to take a final decision on the representation made by the petitioners on 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-9).

Notice of motion.

CWP No.932 of 2007 2

On our asking, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the respondents states, that he has no objection to the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition, with a direction to respondent No.2 i.e. the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, to take a final decision on the representation submitted by the petitioners on 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-9) by passing a well reasoned speaking order, within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Disposed of accordingly.

Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

January 22, 2007 ( S.D. Anand )

vkd Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.