AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikas Bahl, J
This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders / WAN messages dated 01.07.2021, 05.07.2021 and 06.07.2021 (Annexures P-3 to P-5) issued by respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at this stage he would be satisfied in case the claim of the petitioners to be permitted to participate in Phase II of the basic training and also to be appointed as Exemptee Head Constable is considered by the competent authority of respondent no.1 and for the said two prayers, the petitioners would give a representation to the competent authority of respondent no.1-State and the competent authority of respondent no.1 be directed to consider the said representation in a time bound manner and if after considering the same, in case, the pleas raised by the petitioners are found to be meritorious, then necessary relief be granted to the petitioners.
Learned State counsel has submitted that the competent authority of respondent no.1 would consider the said representation and decide the same within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the said representation.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of respondent no.1 to consider the representation which would be filed by the petitioners and decide the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of said representation and in case, after considering the same, the pleas of the petitioners are found to be meritorious, then necessary relief be granted to the petitioners and in case, the pleas of the petitioners are not found to be meritorious, then a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of representation.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the competent authority of respondent no.1 would consider and decide the representation independently, in accordance with law.