Dushyant v. State Of Haryana And Others

2023:PHHC:144455 CWP-14508-2022 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-14508-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: November 14, 2023 Dushyant ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana.

***** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for issuance of direction to respondents to grant 3 additional marks as per weightage for his Post-Graduation, with a further prayer to direct respondent to recommend his name for the post of Constable (Male) General Category. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that for grievances raised, the petitioner would file a detailed representation before the competent authority of respondent No.2 and would be satisfied in case, the competent authority of respondent No.2 considers the same expeditiously and in accordance with law.

3.

Learned State Counsel has submitted that competent authority of respondent No.2 would consider the representation, as and when filed, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said representation. 4.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.11.16 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

2023:PHHC:144455 CWP-14508-2022 (O&M) respondent No.2 to consider representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, as and when filed by the petitioner and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious then competent authority of respondent No.2 would grant necessary relief, in accordance with law and in case, the competent authority of respondent No.2 is of the opinion that the pleas raised by the petitioner are not meritorious then a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of three months from the date of filing the said representation. 5.

This Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the competent authority of respondent No.2 would consider the case of the petitioner independently, in accordance with law.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE November 14, 2023 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.11.16 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment