AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 232 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Responding to an advertisement issued by respondent no. 2, the petitioner applied for the post of Livestock Expansion Officer, Exhibitor and Sericulture Inspector. She had opted for all three posts, but, it is grievance of the petitioner that she has not been considered for the post of Sericulture Inspector in the second provisional merit list dated 10.09.2021. Therefore, petitioner is before the Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though petitioner had applied for all the three posts and had given her options preference-wise, but, while making second provisional merit list, the petitioner was not considered for the post of Sericulture Inspector. Petitioner had given a representation by mail on 20.09.2021, but, no action has been taken on it. Learned counsel restricts his submission that the respondent may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a given time.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would submit that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided within a period of three weeks.
The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 20.09.2021 within a period of three weeks.