HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2342 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.09.2011 **** Surita . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner has already been appointed as Dark Room Assistant vide an order dated 24.01.2011 placed on record by the respondents along with additional affidavit dated 11/15.03.2011 (Annexure R2/T). The petitioner still has a grievance that she ought to have been appointed at Amritsar instead of Patiala. (2). In my considered view, such like grievances can be effectively redressed by the administrative authority. If the petitioner is facing any hardship due to her retention/posting at Patiala, she may represent to the Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, who shall consider the same sympathetically and dispose of within a period of two months from the date of its receipt. (3). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. CWP No.2342 of 2010.doc - 2 - 16.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 2