The petitioner was contender for the post of a Police Constable and according to the averment of the petition he had cleared the written test and the interview. He was, however, refused appointment on the ground that the domicile certificate submitted by him was not a genuine document. It is further averred in the writ petition that instead of seeking verification of the domicile certificate of the petitioner dated 31-7-1995, the office of the S.S.P. Indicated wrong date of domicile of the petitioner i,e, 31-7-1993. In reply, it has been admitted that domicile by the petitioner was dated 31-7-1995. The averment in para. 6 that the official concerned indicated wrong date of domicile while seeking verification from the Deputy Commissioner, has also not been denied in the report and parawise comments. It has further been stated by respondent No,1 that the case of the petitioner was under inquiry and will be decided strictly in accordance with law.
2. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that he will be satisfied if an appropriate direction is issued to respondent No,1 to attend to the pending matter and decide it within a reasonable time limit to be fixed by this Court. The learned Additional Advocate-General has no objection to the issuance of the direction being prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No,1 that the matter pending before him shall be decided within a period of one month in accordance with law under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. This order shall also be conveyed to respondent No,1 by the learned Additional Advocate-General.