Pooja v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-15232-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.07.2022 Pooja

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate, For the petitioner.

Ms. Harsh Rekha Kapoor, AAG, Haryana.

**** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to issue a fresh appointment letter after making the correction in the category of the petitioner as ESP-BCA category instead of ESP-BCB category in the selection/appointment letter No.0921-SE-IIE.4 dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-4) vide which the petitioner has been selected on the post of Peon.

2.

Brief narrative first. Pleaded case is that, at the time of uploading the form of the petitioner, inadvertently the category was wrongly written ESP-BCB instead of ESP-BCA. The petitioner approached the Commission to make necessary corrections in the application form on receipt of admit card and produced her original caste certificate. At that time, she was assured that necessary correction will be made. Again, on 21.12.2021 when the petitioner was called for documents verification, she again produced her above said caste certificate dated 15.09.2009. The verification committee in the presence of the petitioner also wrote the category of petitioner as BCA and also obtained signatures of the petitioner on it. The Commission recommended her name for the post of Peon in the office of SDO, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Haryana at Dabwali vide appointment letter (Annexure P-4) but she was shocked to see that the category of the petitioner had not been corrected. She was not VANDANA 2022.07.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15232-2022 (O&M) -2allowed to join on the said post by the respondent-department due to the above said typographical mistake in the category of the petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of her aforesaid grievance, petitioner also submitted a representation dated30.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) but the same has not been adverted by the respondents till date. Hence, the instant petition. 4.

On advance service, learned State counsel appears and submits that competent authority shall take decision either way, on the pending representation dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-6), in due course. 5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also agrees that let a final decision be taken, by the competent authority on the pending representation dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-6). 6.

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to seek return by any of the respondents as no further proceedings and/or pleadings are required.

7.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner as per representation dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) and take a decision in accordance with law. 8.

Let the needful be done within a period of 30 days from today.

9.

Disposed of accordingly.

JULY 18, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No VANDANA 2022.07.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document