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

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1016834

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SHEKHAR PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSB 108 / 2020



Office Notes, reports, orders SL. or proceedings Date No or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPSB 108/ 2020 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, i/b Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder, for the State.

Mr. Rakshit Srivastava, Advocate, i/b Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent no. 7.

Mr. Devansh Kaushik, Advocate, i/b Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent no. 8.

(2) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged an advertisement issued on 6.5.2020. By the said advertisement, applications were invited for appointment to different faculty positions in different Govt. Medical Colleges in State of Uttarakhand. (3) Since the writ petition was filed in 2020 challenging an advertisement and the selection process must have been concluded by now, therefore, no useful purpose would served by keeping the writ petition pending.

petitioner submits that petitioner had applied for appointment as Professor and no selection could be held for which petitioner had applied.

(5) In view of the statement made writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

29.4.2025

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 Back to top