IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2125 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.12.2009 Harsimran Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Shri UK Walia and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.28241-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.2125 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, name of the petitioner was duly sent by the Employment Exchange, Ambala being qualified to be appointed on the post of Peon-cum-Messenger but the respondents did not call him for interview. The petitioner also made a representation dated 20.7.2009 (attached as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition) to the respondents. The petitioner filed CWP No.11366 of 2009 for issuance of directions to the respondents to hold the interview of the petitioner for the aforesaid post and this Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2009 passed in the aforesaid writ petition directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 20.7.2009 of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the aforesaid representation of the petitioner has not been decided and the respondents have declared the result of the interviews vide Annexure P-4 for recruitment of Messengers and thus, the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of this Court. COCP No.2125 of 2009 (O&M) -2- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner himself that there was some dispute with regard to his date of birth which came to his knowledge only on 14.7.2009 when he was not issued a call letter to attend the interview to be held on 4/5.8.2009 and after making the correction in his record, the same was clarified by the Employment Officer. Thus, in this situation, it is difficult to opine as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the call letter or not. Moreover, the direction to decide his representation was given by this Court on 31.7.2009 only and whether the same was received by the respondents before the interview on 4/5.8.2009 is a disputed question of fact. Moreover, there was no order restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the candidates who were interviewed on 4.8.2009. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to take cognizance of this petition. Disposed of. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take any other appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. December 7, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE