Ajit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-18597-2023 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18597-2023 Date of Decision: August 25, 2023 Ajit Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to the official respondents to consider the application moved by the petitioner for the post of Nambardari (Gen) in village Sarhala Kalan, as the official respondents No.2 to 4 have proceeded the petitioner ex parte, despite the fact that he has been appearing before the authorities since the year 2019, when the post in question was published.

It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He had duly applied for the post of Lambardar and was appearing before the concerned authorities, however, at the time of scrutiny of the applications, he found his name missing and thus, his application has not been considered. He submits that application filed by him should be considered alongwith other applications. Notice of motion.

MEENU 2023.08.25 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP-18597-2023 -2On asking of the Court, Ms.Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State and has placed on record the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, dated 10.08.2023 on the application filed by the petitioner, dated 06.07.2023, wherein it has been observed that application of the petitioner is denied as he was absent for four dates in the Court and was not present before the SDM Court and thus, his application could not be considered at that stage.

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, for redressal of his grievances within ten days from today and if the same is filed within stipulated time, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within two weeks from the date of its receipt. Needless to say that if no such application is filed then this order would be of no avail to the petitioner.

August 25, 2023 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2023.08.25 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment