IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 216 Kamini Gautam State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. was not considered only on account of the fact that her A Certificate for representing India in an international event, it being 15 Asian Games, DOHA Administration, The same is judgments in Commission and others Imran and others Punjab and others IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kamini Gautam Versus f Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Prabhat Kashyap, Advocate for Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate, for respondents No.5 to 7. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel submits that candidature of the petitioner was not considered only on account of the fact that her A Certificate for representing India in an international event, it being 15 Asian Games, DOHA-2006, which though was issued by the Chandigarh Administration, but was not counter-signed by the Director Sports Punjab The same is a curable defect, for which judgments in Miss Neelam Sharma vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, 2005(4) SCT 304, Imran and others 2023(4) PLJR 233 and Jyotsna Bhasker vs. State of Punjab and others, LPA-1413-2023, decided on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25752-2016 (O & M) Date of decision: 15.05.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Advocate, Mr. Prabhat Kashyap, Advocate for Learned counsel submits that candidature of the petitioner was not considered only on account of the fact that her A-Grade Sports Certificate for representing India in an international event, it being 15th though was issued by the Chandigarh signed by the Director Sports Punjab. or which reference is made to the Miss Neelam Sharma vs. Rajasthan Public Service , 2005(4) SCT 304, Union of India vs. Uzair Jyotsna Bhasker vs. State of 2023, decided on 26.07.2024. He prays PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.16 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-25752-2016 -2- his case be re-considered taking into consideration the aforesaid in a time bound manner. 2. The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to have a relook at the matter and decide afresh, taking note of the aforesaid submissions and judgments, within a period of 4 months, uninfluenced by the order impugned in the present case, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 3. The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to her interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to her and shall contain reasons, whereupon she shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. 15.05.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.05.16 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.