Petitioner sought mandamus to be considered for a post based on merit. Court directed respondents to verify facts regarding petitioner's illness and non-attendance before taking a decision on her request.
Direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to ascertain facts and decide on petitioner's request within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civl Writ Petition No.14976 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 17, 2011.
Amrit Kaur ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
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?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider her for the post of Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I.) as per her merit. It is alleged that after the recent decision of this Court dated 27.7.2010 in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.451 of 2008 (Manjit Singh versus State of Punjab and others) the candidates with higher qualifications like the petitioner, were called for counseling. The petitioner was also called for counseling on 9.7.2011 alongwith other candidates of district Faridkot. She however did not attend the counseling as she was down with enteric fever and infective hepatitis . The petitioner is said to have represented the authorities soon after recovery on 1.8.2011 (Annexure
CWP No.14976 of 2011
[2]
P-7) but finding no response that she has approached this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the plea taken by her, it appears that the request made by the petitioner to recall her for counseling requires sympathetic consideration provided that the reason(s) for her non-appearance on 9.7.2011 were factually correct and acceptable to the authorities. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to ascertain the correct facts and thereafter take an appropriate decision on the request made by the petitioner vide representation dated 1.8.2011, within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this
order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
(SURYA KANT) August 17, 2011 Mohinder JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be recalled for counseling for the post of Physical Training Instructor considering her illness and representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjit Singh versus State of Punjab and othersReferred¶14
CWP No.451 of 2008 (Manjit Singh versus State of Punjab and others)
Amrit Kaur
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
