C.W.P. No. 14264 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14264 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 08.08.2011 Paramjeet Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. KPS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing directions to the respondents to take back the petitioner in service as volunteer under Sarv Sikhya Abhiyan. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was working as Education Volunteer and his services were terminated without assigning any reason and without passing any termination order. Learned counsel further contends that similarly situated employees, who were also working as Educational Volunteer were taken back in service and general directions have been issued for taking all employees whose services were terminated. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that one Sukhbir Singh filed C.W.P. No. 4514 of 2011 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.3.2011 with a direction to consider his case and on the basis of that direction, said Sukhbir Singh has been taken back in service. Learned C.W.P. No. 14264 of 2011 (2) counsel further contends that the case of the petitioner is also at par with Sukhbir Singh. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without issuing notice of motion to the other party, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authorities within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In case the petitioner files a representation before the respondent-authorities, the respondent- authorities are directed to consider the same in view of the order passed by this court in C.W.P. No. 4541 of 2011. On decision of the representation, if the respondent-authorities comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is at also at par with other similarly situated employee, who were taken back, he should also be taken back in service. Petition is disposed of accordingly. August 08, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE