Kailash Chander And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: - 27.11.2020 Kailash Chander and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioners.

(Through Video Conferencing) **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioners is that the persons, who are similarly situated as the petitioners, who also could not be selected on the post of PTI, are being adjusted as Sports and School Special Assistant by the respondents, wherein the claim of the petitioners is not being considered for adjusting them as Sports and School Special Assistant. In order to substantiate the said averment, petitioners relies upon the orders passed by the respondents adjusting some of the employees as Sports and School Special Assistant, which have been attached as Annexures P-7 to P-13. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the adjustment

-2of the similarly situated employees as the petitioners, as Sports and School Special Assistant, is being done by the respondents by a pick and choose method without following any criteria. Prayer of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that they be also appointed as Sports and School Special Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the relief, which is being claimed in the present writ petition, petitioners have already submitted the representations dated 15.10.2020 (Annexures P-4 to P-6), which are still pending consideration with respondent No.2 and the petitioners will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to respondent No.2 to decide the said representations by passing an appropriate speaking order.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

Learned State counsel submits that the respondents have no objection with regard to prayer of the petitioners for deciding representations dated 15.10.2020 (Annexures P-4 to P-6) in a time bound manner by passing an appropriate speaking order. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representations dated 15.10.2020 (Annexures P-4 to P-6) by passing a speaking order within a period of

-3three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Present writ petition stands disposed of.

November 27, 2020 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No