Allowed

Ranjana Devi v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2023CWP/7816/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition seeking additional marks under Socio Economic Criteria for a Govt. job. Ruling was made allowing the petition subject to conditions, directing the State to pass an appropriate speaking order within 8 weeks regarding a pending representation.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed subject to exceptions; direction to respondent to pass speaking order within 8 weeks on pending representation.

Ranjana Devi Vs State of Haryana and Another — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CWP-7816-2023 (O&M)

¶2

2023:PHHC:124517

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

111

¶6

CWP-7816-2023 Decided on : 21.09.2023

Ranjana Devi

. . . Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶11

. . . Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶13

PRESENT: Mr. G. S. Gopera, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

¶14

¶15

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶16

CM-16096-2023

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexure A-1 is taken on record.

¶18

Main Case

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been given 5 marks under the Socio Economic Criteria for no family member in govt. job while competing for the Group-D post in pursuance to the advertisement No. 4/2018 dated 26.08.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have evolved various criteria which are contrary to each other for the grant of marks under the Social Economic Criteria which is causing prejudice to the petitioner and the prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner should have also been granted 5

¶20

CWP-7816-2023 (O&M) -22023:PHHC:124517

¶21

marks under the Socio Economic Criteria for no family member in Govt. job and then only her eligibility should have been ascertained for further selection process.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the grievance raised in the present petition has already been raised in the representation dated 10.02.2023, copy of which has been appended as Anneuxre P-11 and the petitioner will be satisfied at this stage in case a time bound direction is given to the respondent by this Court by passing an appropriate speaking order.

¶23

Notice of motion.

¶24

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana accepts notice and submits that in case, representation (Annexure P-11) dated 10.02.2023 has been received in the office of the concerned authority and the same is still pending consideration, appropriate order will be passed within a period of 8 weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in

¶26

view the statement of learned State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further.

¶27

Ordered accordingly.

¶28

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶29

21.09.2023

¶30

Mehak

¶31

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

Ranjana Devi v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Devi v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Joginder Singh Budhwar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kiran Khera Vs State of Haryana and Others

Santosh Aggarwal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunita Rani Vs the Union of India and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balwan Singh Vs State of Hy