Raj Rani v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.26729 of 2016 Date of decision: 22.12.2016 Raj Rani ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:

Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Clerk in the Handicapped Reserved Category and being handicapped, she is exempted to appear in the type test but in spite of that, she is being asked to appear in the type test before issuance of appointment letter.

However, learned counsel also submits that the representation was made to Chief Minister and all heads of the department but nothing has been placed on record whereas before approaching this Court for seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, a representation should have been made and authorities concerned should have been approached but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has approached the concerned authorities. Accordingly, by considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider this writ petition as representation Neetu Rani 2017.01.09 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.26729 of 2016 and take necessary action in accordance with Rules as well as the condition mentioned in the advertisement within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

22.12.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No Neetu Rani 2017.01.09 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh