Disposed

Jaspal Kaur etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2013CWP/10683/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning denial of police appointment, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, to decide the petitioners representation within six weeks and pass a reasoned order if the claim is rejected.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide the representation of 18.2.2013 within six weeks and pass a reasoned order if claim is not accepted.

Jaspal Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.10683 of 2013 { 1 }

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision: May 17, 2013

¶4

Jaspal Kaur & others

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab & others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present: Mr.Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)

¶13

Petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that their claim for appointment as Constables in the Police Force has been denied only on the ground that they are married daughters of the persons, whose lands have been acquired for Peona Thermal Power Plant at Village Gobindpur, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. It is contended that there is no such bar with regard to the consideration of the married daughters of the persons, whose lands have been acquired. Contention has been raised that earlier appointment orders have been issued to similarly placed persons, namely, Lakhwinder Singh Belt No.1522, Manpreet Kaur Belt No.1566 and Ranveer Kaur Belt No.1567 by the respondents. Pointing out these facts, petitioners have submitted a representation

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No.10683 of 2013 { 2 }

¶15

dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure P-4) to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa-respondent No.2, but the said representation, till date, has not been decided.

¶16

Counsel contends that the petitioners, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Mansa to consider and decide the representation dated dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioners, within some specified time.

¶17

In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners and without going into the merit of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Mansa to consider and decide the representation dated dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure P-4) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶18

In case the claim of the petitioners is not to be accepted, then a well reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to the petitioners forthwith.

¶19

May 17, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE

Jaspal Kaur etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal Kaur etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

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

Kuldeep Singh Vs State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and Others

Ashwani Kumar Vs State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Others

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhavna Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Chaman Lal Bhandari Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ajmer Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.