Full Judgment
Chhaya Pathak.
versus State of M.P.& Anr.
Writ Petition No.16400 ”
28. 9.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice.
The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner.
Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claim similar benefit.
Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner without entering into the controversy, respondents are directed to examine the case of petitioner in the light of action taken in the case of Surendra Kumar Gupta and a speaking order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.
It is exclusively for the competent authority to take note of the matter and pass an order in accordance to law indicating reasons.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-