Pinki Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pinki Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of on consent, expressly without deciding merits, by directing respondent No.3 (Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula) to treat the writ petition as a representation, hear the parties, and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receipt of the certified copy of the order; if the decision favours the petitioner, the needful recommendation is to follow within a further two months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/Commission ought to be directed to recommend the petitioner to the post of Group D in view of her merit under the ESP (SC) Category, given her contention that she secured more marks than the prescribed cutoff but was neither recommended for the post nor allowed to join.

Court's answer

With the consent of the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3 (The Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula) to treat the writ petition as a representation and to consider and decide it by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, within two months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

If, upon considering the case of the petitioner, the decision goes in her favour, the needful recommendation is to be carried out within a further period of two months.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PINKI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS - CWP-15797-2025 (Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh), decided 28.05.2025 by Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. Writ petition prayed for a direction to the respondents to recommend the petitioner to the post of Group D in view of her merit under the ESP (SC) Category; learned counsel contended she had secured more marks than the cutoff prescribed by the respondent Commission, which nevertheless neither recommended her nor allowed her to join, and her several requests went unfruitful. Disposed of, with the consent of the parties and without commenting on the merits: respondent No.3, the Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula, was directed to treat the petition as a representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties within two months of receipt of the certified copy of the order, with any favourable decision to be followed by the needful recommendation within a further two months. No statutory provision or precedent is cited; no quantum arises.

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

116 CWP-15797-2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025

PINKI

... Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

... Respondents

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. ******

Present: Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Inter alia prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner to the post of Group D in view of her merit under the ESP (SC) Category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has secured more marks than the cutoff as prescribed by the respondentCommission, however, notwithstanding the same, the Commission neither recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Group D nor have they allowed her to join. The petitioner made several requests to the respondents, but nothing fruitful could be gained.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and prays for some time to seek instructions.

RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.05.28 05:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

CWP-15797-2025

-2-

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that he would be satisfied at this stage, in case respondent No.3- The Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula is directed to treat the present petition as a representation and to consider and decide the same by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection to the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, in view of the above; with the consent of the parties and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of while directing respondent No.3 to treat the present writ petition as a representation and to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to mention that upon considering the case of the petitioner, if the decision goes in favour of the petitioner, the needful recommendation be also done within a further period of two months.

Disposed of in above terms.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) MAY 28, 2025. JUDGE Rajender

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.05.28 05:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order