SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(All) 3558

SUDHIR AGARWAL
MAYA MAHALLA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Vijay Gautam for the Petitioner; Piyush Shukla, S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petitions are finally decided under the Rules of the Court at this stage.

3. Writ petitions No. 19027 of 2008, 19006 of 2008, 14840 of 2008, 14839 of 2008, 13996 of 2008, 14838 of 2008, 13990 of 2008, 13988 of 2008, 15100 of 2008, 15208 of 2008, 15210 of 2008, and 19026 of 2008 have been filed by the petitioners claiming promotion on the post of Head constable (CP) in the State of U.P. (hereinafter called as First set). Writ petition Nos. 69426 of 2005, 64894 of 2006 and 297 of 2007 (hereinafter called as second set) have been filed by the petitioners of first set challenging the orders passed by respondents communicating them their allocation to the State of Uttranchal in exercise of powers under U.P. State Re-organization Act, 2000.

4. The petitioners of first set have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow them to join the training of Head constable (Civil police) pursuant to Eligibility list Examination for Head constable (CP) and also to pr

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top