IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 112 Pavandeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. of the petitioner for appointment to the post of ETT against t reserved for SC (R & O) 2. the aforesaid category, had secured 57 marks, however, marks for G well, however, was not appointed only on account of having submitted provisional certificate issued by the University, which he had produced on account of final degree could not be He submits that the passed in Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs. Priyanka and others, 2021 (4) S.C.T. 80. Regarding the claim raised representation dated 17.09.2024, Annexure P IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pavandeep Singh Versus f Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made is for directing respondents to consider the case the petitioner for appointment to the post of ETT against t reserved for SC (R & O) Category. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid category, had secured 57 marks, however, Graduation, total comes to 62, and participated well, however, was not appointed only on account of having submitted provisional certificate issued by the University, which he had produced on account of final degree could not be furnished He submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs. Priyanka and , 2021 (4) S.C.T. 80. Regarding the claim raised representation dated 17.09.2024, Annexure P IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19116-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 11.07.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Prayer made is for directing respondents to consider the case the petitioner for appointment to the post of ETT against the seats Learned counsel submits that the petitioner who applied in the aforesaid category, had secured 57 marks, however, an addition of 5 and participated in scrutiny as well, however, was not appointed only on account of having submitted provisional certificate issued by the University, which he had produced on furnished as it was issued later on. case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs. Priyanka and , 2021 (4) S.C.T. 80. Regarding the claim raised in this petition, a representation dated 17.09.2024, Annexure P-10, has been submitted, PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.11 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-19116-2025 -2- which has yet not evoked any response. He, on instructions, prays that a direction may be given to the respondents to decide the same, taking note of the aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner, to which learned State counsel has no objection. 3. In view of the above and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 17.09.2024, within a period of 2 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and hearing offered to him and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to his interest, the same shall contain reasons and the petitioner shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. 11.07.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.11 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.