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 · 203 wordsB.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the respondents.
By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade Hindi (Language), after considering and awarding quality points for his post graduation degree.
During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made a representation (Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition) before the respondent No. 3, for redressal of his grievance, which is pending for disposal. He, therefore, prayed that the respondent No. 3 may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order thereon, and the writ petition may be disposed of finally. Prayer made is innocuous.
The respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order after considering the judgments referred in the representation, within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.