Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

Through the instant petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a direction upon the respondent-State to correct the category of the petitioner in PSTET-2025 records from “General” to “PwBD (100%) Locomotor Disability)” and thereupon to extend all consequential benefits to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondents for PSTET-2025, the petitioner filled up the online application form, wherein, inadvertently, he selected the category of “General (Domicile Outside Punjab)” instead of “PwBD (Person with Benchmark Disability)”. He further submits that the correction window remained open from 22.02.2026 to 23.02.2026 for making corrections in the online application forms. The petitioner made efforts to change his category from “General” to “PwBD (100% Locomotor Disability)”, however, he could not do so on account of system limitations on the portal. Consequently, an admit card was issued to him mentioning therein his category as “General”. Although, he appeared in the examination and his result was subsequently declared.

He further submits that, with regard to his grievance, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter also served a legal notice dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-6). However, till date, no final decision has been taken thereon by the authority concerned.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that, at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case a direction is issued to the competent authority/ respondent concerned to decide the legal notice dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) within a stipulated period.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab, who is in receipt of an advance copy of the writ petition and represents the respondent, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the competent authority/respondent concerned to decide the legal notice (supra) within a stipulated period.

In view of the above, and without evincing any opinion on the merits of the writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent authority/respondent concerned to take a final decision on the legal notice (supra) by passing a speaking order, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to seek revival of the instant writ petition in the event the authority fails to comply with the directions issued hereinabove.

Disposed of accordingly.