The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order rejecting an appointment claim due to age disqualification. The Court found the age bar was removed by an Ordinance and dismissed the writ petition as the case did not warrant extraordinary jurisdiction, allowing subsequent withdrawal.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-26935-2021 Date of Decision: 05.01.2022
SUJANA RAM
...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
(Presence marked through video conference)
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein, under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 11.12.2021 (Annexures P-12 and P-13), whereby, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by appointing the private respondent as Executive ViceChairperson (EVC).
on the post in question, was increased from 65 to 68 years. Neither is the Ordinance under challenge before this Court nor even otherwise, it is the case of the petitioner that private respondent No.4 is above 68 years.
jurisdiction.
January 05, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH 2022.01.05 17:48 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ of certiorari to quash an order rejecting the petitioner's claim regarding the appointment of a respondent who was superannuated.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sujana Ram
State of Haryana
Arun Monga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
