Disposed

Rupinderjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2010CWP/15746/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for appointment as ETT teacher against OBC reserved post. Petitioner alleged lesser merit candidates were appointed. Court allowed a fresh representation by specific respondents with a speaking order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation with specific particulars; authority to pass speaking order within two months.

Rupinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 15746 of 2007 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 26^rd April, 2010 .

¶3

Rupinderjit Kaur

¶4

Petitioner through Dr. M.L.Sachdeva, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mrs. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶11

The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint her as ETT teacher against the reserved post of Other Backward Classes [OBC]. She asserts that while she has got 127.49 marks, the candidates lower in merit than her have been given appointments.

¶12

The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit refuting the petitioner's claim. It is explained that firstly all those who were possessing the qualification of ETT/JBT Diploma have been given appointments and thereafter, unfilled posts have been offered to the candidates like the petitioner, possessing B.A./B.Ed. No candidate having qualification of B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed. lower in merit than the petitioner has been offered appointment in the reserved category or otherwise.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner still insists that some

¶14

candidates lower in merit have been appointed.

¶15

In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondent No. 2 by giving specific particulars of those candidates in B.A., B.Ed. Category who are lower in merit and have been given appointment. On receipt of such a representation, the Competent Authority shall consider her claim by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

¶16

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶17

April 26, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

Rupinderjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupinderjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjivan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhag Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishana Devi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Piyara Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prem Nath Vs the State of Punjab and Anr.