Amrik Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh And Others

CWP-7980-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7980-2024 Date of Decision: April 10, 2024 Amrik Singh .... Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mohd. Jameel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate, and Mr. Maheshinder Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondents.

***** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Petitioner - Amrik Singh has filed the present writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, by directing respondent No. 2 - Director General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, to consider his claim, by deciding the representation dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-10). 2.

In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 invited online applications for filling up 45 temporary posts (male and female) of Constable (Executive), under Sports Quota of Group 'C', by way of direct recruitment. Being eligible, the petitioner also applied for the said post under Scheduled Caste category. Further, claim of the petitioner is that in the final select list, his name and roll number was reflected at Serial No. 4 of Male SC-Merit List. All the eligible selected candidates were called for LAVISHA 2024.04.10 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

CWP-7980-2024 -2their medical examination, but for the reasons best known to the respondents, neither the petitioner was called for medical examination nor any communication was sent to him for not conducting his medical examination. Even appointment letters have been issued to the selected candidates. Faced with this, firstly the petitioner addressed a representation dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), to respondent No. 2, and when no response was received by him, present writ petition has been preferred. 3.

Mr. Rohit Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, after seeking instructions, informed this Court that at the time of submission of online application, the petitioner was not fully eligible for the post in question. However, he undertakes that the representation dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-10), submitted by the petitioner, would be considered and finally decided by the competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today.

4.

In view of the stand taken by the respondents, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation, dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-10), within a period of two weeks from today, i.e. on or before 24.04.2024, by passing a speaking order, and copy of the order deciding the said representation of the petitioner be communicated to him within one week thereafter.

This petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 10, 2024 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned  Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No  LAVISHA 2024.04.10 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement