High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18201/2021disposed of

Hemant v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission And Others

2021-09-14Mr. Justice Harminder Singh Madaan2 pages

CWP No. 18201 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18201 of 2021 DATE OF DECISION :- September 14, 2021 Hemant

...Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present:- Mr.R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shubhra Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. *** The case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Petitioner Hemant, aged 25 years son of Sh. Baje Singh Saini, resident of Main Gali, Rajinder Nagar, Gohana Road, Rohtak has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the action of the respondent Commission by which petitioner was awarded 88 marks while as per answer sheet dated 3.3.

2020 (P-1) and answer key (P-2) the petitioner was entitled to 90 marks, further craving for issuance of direction to the official respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for selection and appointment as Protection Assistant from the date respondent No. 3 Umang Yadav was appointed against one post reserved for BC-B category along with all consequential benefits. The petitioner had statedly submitted representation (Annexure P-7) to the official respondents but that did not PARVINDER SINGH 2021.09.

CWP No. 18201 of 2021 evoke any positive response.

Under the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to be more precise, respondent No. 1 Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula to consider the claim of petitioner in accordance with law, rules, regulations and instructions on the subject within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if some action in the matter is warranted then the needful be done in accordance with law. A speaking order in that regard be passed which be conveyed to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels dissatisfied after passing of the order then he may approach the Court again in accordance with law. (H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE September 14, 2021 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PARVINDER SINGH 2021.09.14 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document