High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 03 P&H CK 0062

Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 March 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikas Bahl, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 6217 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 263 words

Vikas Bahl, J

1.

This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the advertisement no.3 of 2024 dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.4.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner by virtue of the representation dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) has brought to the notice of the authorities for consideration for keeping some minimum cut off marks. It is further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, the said representation dated 05.03.2024 is considered by respondent no.4 as per the rules. It is stated that in case the authorities do not wish to keep the minimum cut off marks, then the petitioner would not challenge the said decision of respondent no.4.

3.

Learned State counsel has submitted that although respondent no.4 would consider the said representation but the petitioner has no legal right nor there is any legal duty on the part of respondent no.4 to necessarily provide for minimum cut off marks.

4.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4 to consider the representation dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), in accordance with law.

5.

It is made clear that as undertaken before this Court that, in case, respondent no.4 is of the opinion that no minimum cut off marks are required to be given in the facts and circumstances, then the petitioner would not lay any further challenge to the said decision / view of respondent no.4.