SADHANA CHAUDHARY Vs. HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions raises a common question relating to interpretation of cut off date prescribed in the advertisement dated January 23, 1995, Annexure P.1.

(2.) In Civil Writ Petition No.2252, we issued notice of motion returnable on February 17, 1095. The matter stood adjourned from time to time to enable the respondents to file the written Statement. In this writ petition, the University Grants Commission is also impleaded as second respondent through its Secretary. As per the office report, the University Grants Commission has been served, but none appears for the second respondent. In some of the connected writ petitions, notices of motion were also issued, but in some they were not issued to avoid delay.

(3.) For the purpose of this judgment, we may refer to the averments contained in Civil Writ Petition No.2252 of 1995.