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
8 paragraphs · 248 wordsRomesh Verma, J
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition mainly for the following reliefs:-
“a) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the mandate of the policy as well as her personal hardship and transfer her, near to her native place or near to posting of her husband in the choice of stations, keeping in view the fact that petitioner has completed her normal tenure at the present place of posting.
b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the petitioner from her present place of posting to a station, as mentioned herein para supra above.
During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authorities to decide the representation Annexure P5, which was submitted to the respondents.
The respondents are directed to take a decision on the representation (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and the said order shall be communicated to the petitioner by the respondents.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent shall take a decision on the representation strictly in accordance with the law.
Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.