Navpreet Singh vs State of Punjab and another

Ajay Tewari, J.—Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was selected in the written exam but was not allowed to take interview on the ground that he did not have the subject of Biology in 10+2 class whereas he studied the same subject in much higher classes. He further states that in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 451 of 2008, decided on 5.2.2010, the petitioner cannot be held to be ineligible. Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply two copies of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply (ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage.

Counsel for the respondents has stated that it would be appropriate if respondent No. 2 should consider this writ petition as a representation and decide the same, by passing a speaking order, within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. So ordered. If the petitioner is found eligible, further action be taken accordingly.

Petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the respondents under the signatures of the Court Secretary.