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
5 paragraphs · 188 wordsAjay Mohan Goel, J
When this case was taken up for consideration today, Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case a direction is issued by the Court to the respondents/competent authority to decide representation of the petitioner dated 12.08.2020, appended with the petition as Annexure P-20, in view of letter/Corrigendum dated 31.12.2016 (Annexure P-3), within a time bound period.
Accordingly, as prayed for, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide representation dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure P-20) made by the petitioner, in view of letter/ Corrigendum dated 31.12.2016 (Annexure P-3), within a period of six weeks from today, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and the representation of the petitioner shall be decided by the competent authority uninfluenced of any observation made by this Court in this regard.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.