CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 05 P&H CK 0105

Jiyanshi Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 May 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikas Bahl, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 12237 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 · 341 words

Vikas Bahl, J

1.

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction or order in the nature of mandamus whereby directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to comply with the notification/list No.1/15-2017ACD(4) dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure P-10) issued by Directorate School Education to the petitioner thereby admitting the petitioner in Class first.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the grievances raised by the petitioner, the petitioner had given a letter dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-12) and at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, the respondent No.3 considers the same, in accordance with law, within a specified time frame and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, grant the appropriate relief to the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that the respondent No.3 would consider the said letter dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-12), filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law and the same would be done within a period of three weeks from the date of certified copy of this order.

4.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the letter dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-12) given by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and in case, the respondent No.3 is of the view that the pleas raised by the petitioner are meritorious, then, the appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. In case, the respondent No.3 is of the view that the pleas raised by the petitioner are meritless, then, a speaking order rejecting the claim be passed within the aforesaid period of three weeks.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the respondent No.3 would consider and decide the matter independently, in accordance with law.