Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/21181/2019 of SANDEEP DEUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGATON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 21181 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP DEUBEY S/O SHRI PHOOL CHAND DUBEYOCCUPATION: AS COMPUTER OPERATOR JANPADPANCHYAT BUDNI, DISTRICT SIHORE R/OGOVERNMENT QUARTER NO.2, JANPAD COMPUND,JANPAD OFFICE, BUDNI, DISTRICT SIHORE, M.P.(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANURAG SHIVHARE - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHSECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.STATE OF M.P. THROUGH JOINT DIRECTORDIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT RAJ NEAR P.FOFFICER ARERA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH)DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYAT RAJ NEAR P.FOFFICER ARERA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYATDISTT. SEHROE (MADHYA PRADESH)DISTT. SEHROE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYATBUDNI DISTT. SEHROE (MADHYA PRADESH)BUDNI DISTT. SEHROE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.COLLECTOR SEHORE DISTT. SEHROE (MADHYAPRADESH)PRADESH)
(BY SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia making a prayer for issuing of writ/order to the respondents to regularizethe petitioner on vacant post of Computer Operator.
2. It is submitted by counsel appearing for petitioner that representationof petitioner is pending since 2019 and same has not been decided.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that if freshrepresentation is preferred along with documents supporting his claim thensame will be decided by the Competent Authority i.e. respondent No.3 inaccordance with law.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, petition is disposed off directingrespondent No.3 to consider and decided the representation of petitioner bypassing reasonable and speaking order within a period of 120 days from receiptof fresh representation along with documents.
5. Fresh representation will be filed within a period of 15 days before therespondent No3.
6. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
pn
(VISHAL DHAGAT)JUDGE