Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALJIT SINGH BAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baljit Singh Bal v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-976-2007 [2007] RD-P&H 697 (19 January 2007)

CWP No. 976 of 2007 1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No. 976 of 2007

Date of Decision: 22.01.2007

Baljit Singh Bal

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others.

....Respondents.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand.

Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is, that the selection made by the respondents, is contrary to, and in violation of, the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Primary Teachers (Recruitment and Conditions of service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Rules). In this behalf, it is submitted, that the petitioner had issued a representation dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-8) highlighting, how the provisions of the 2006 Rules, had been violated. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that an identical controversy as the one raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, has been adjudicated by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.10994 of 2006 (Mandeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), decided on CWP No. 976 of 2007 2

13.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the petitioner will be satisfied, if the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Mandeep Singh's case (supra), with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a final decision on the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-8).

Notice of motion.

On our asking, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.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 petitioner.

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate, to dispose of the instant writ petition, by directing respondent No.2 i.e. the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, to take a final decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-8) by passing a well reasoned speaking order, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of accordingly.

Order dasti on payment of usual charges.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

( S.D. Anand )

Judge.

22.01.2007

sk.


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.