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
9 paragraphs · 248 wordsRomesh Verma, J
The petitioner has approached this Court for the following main reliefs:
(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned office order dated 09.02.2026, Annexure P-1, may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner;
(ii) That in alternate, a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent department to adjust the petitioner at any other suitable station in view of her family circumstances;
(iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to decide representation filed by petitioner in a time bound manner.”
During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied in case the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the concerned authorities, for the redressal of her grievances, by giving stations of her convenience.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction, that in case, the present petitioner files a representation to the concerned authorities within a period of three days from today, in that case, the same shall be sympathetically considered and decided by the concerned authorities within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
Needless to say, that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case and the concerned authorities is/are at liberty to take decision in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.