1. Writ petition for mandamus to appoint petitioner as LDC based on revised merit list showing higher marks than last selected candidate. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harpreet Singh Brar, J
Sumit Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-34691-2025 (O&M)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, Sumit Sharma, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for the appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) (!) (!) .
The petitioner claims that he was selected and appointed as LDC in 2020 based on an advertisement, served for nearly three years, and was terminated in 2023 due to a missing Gradation Certificate in the Outstanding Sports Person category (!) .
The petitioner challenged the termination, which was upheld in a previous court order, but later discovered a revised merit list indicating that his marks (100) were higher than the last selected candidate in the current list (80) (!) .
The petitioner requests that his representation dated 16.06.2025 be considered by the respondent, with a direction for a timely and reasoned decision (!) (!) .
The court observed that the respondents have no objection to a time-bound consideration of the petitioner’s representation and directed respondent No.4 to consider the representation and pass a speaking order within two months, after providing an opportunity for hearing (!) (!) .
The decision taken on the representation should be communicated promptly, and if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief, it should be granted immediately (!) .
The case was disposed of accordingly, with the court emphasizing the importance of a fair and timely decision process (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
1. Writ petition for mandamus to appoint petitioner as LDC based on revised merit list showing higher marks than last selected candidate. (Para 1 , 2 )
2. Petitioner seeks decision on representation; respondents have no objection to time-bound consideration. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court directs respondent to consider representation and pass speaking order within two months. (Para 5 , 6 )
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) inasmuch as the revised merit list (Annexure P-18), in pursuance of advertisement No.03/2016, Category No.03, unequivocally demonstrates that the last selected candidate in the General category secured only 80 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 100 marks (Annexure P-8).
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was selected and appointed as LDC in the year 2020 based upon the advertisement No.03/2016. The petitioner served for the last two years and ten months with a good record and cleared the mandatory SETC exam. However, his services were terminated in the year 2023, after the respondent/Commission withdrew its recommendation on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the Gradation Certificate in the Outstanding Sports Person (OSP) category. The petitioner challenged the same by filing CWP-11214-2023, which was dismissed on 06.07.2023 as discernible from Annexure P-13. Thereafter, the petitioner discovered a revised list, after obtaining the information under the RTI Act, which shows that the last selected candidate in the General category secured 80 marks whereas the petitioner had secured 100 marks, which is higher than the last selected candidate in the current list. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA-227-2023, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another , decided on 28.11.2023 and another judgment passed by this Court in CWP-22856-2019, titled as Parveen vs State of Haryana and others , decided on 06.12.2022, to buttress his case.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the representation dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-20) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.4 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.
4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, appearing on advance notice, submit that they have no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.4 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-20) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.
5. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representation dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-20) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order in terms of the Instructions dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-19), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 02 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be promptly conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.4.
6. Disposed of, accordingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top