IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13927 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 07.09.2009 Mandeep Singh ... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate, for Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who in the selection of ETT teachers, was placed in the waiting list, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to consider and appoint him to the vacant post of ETT teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that in the comparative merit list, two candidates, namely Sukhdeep Singh and Mandupinder Kaur were selected and appointed to the post of ETT teacher, whereas names of Navdeep Singh and the petitioner were shown at Serial No.1 and 2, respectively, in the waiting list. It is the further case of the petitioner that one of the selected candidates, namely Sukhdeep Singh, did not join the post and in his place, Navdeep Singh, who was at Serial No.1 in the waiting CWP No. 13927 of 2009 -2- list, was appointed. It is further stated that subsequently, during the course of verification, it was found that the second selected candidate, namely Mandupinder Kaur, was not having the requisite Degree pertaining to the compulsory qualification, and after issuing show cause notice to her, her appointment was cancelled. It is further stated that her writ petition challenging the said order has also been dismissed. In these circumstances, it is stated that one post of ETT teacher has fallen vacant, on which the petitioner has right to be considered for appointment, being waiting list candidate. Counsel contends that in this regard, the petitioner has made a detailed representation, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-8, but the same has not been considered and decided so far. Counsel states that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the said representation within a reasonable time. In view of the above, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-8) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. September 07, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE