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

ARCHNA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


Advocates:
['DEVENDRA SINGH BOHRA', '', 'RAVEENDRA SINGH BISHT', 'C S C', 'RAMJI SHRIVASTAVA']

SL.

No

Date

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

or directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

W PSS 1 1 7 0 / 2 0 2 2

Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.

Mr.

Raveendra

Singh

Bisht,

Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakesh Kanwar, Additional CSC,

for the State/ respondents no. 1 and 2.

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for

the respondent no. 3.

Petitioner

responded

to

an

advertisement,

issued

by

Uttarakhand

Medical Service Selection Board, whereby

applications were invited for appointment as

Health

Worker

(Female).

According

to

petitioner, she belongs to ‘Other Backward

Class’ category, however, due to inadvertent

mistake she wrongly mentioned her category

as ‘Unreserved’ in her application form. In

this writ petition, petitioner has sought

following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in

the nature of mandamus commanding the

respondents to permit the petitioner to

rectify the mistake in her application form

i.e. OBC category in place of General

Category for the appointment to the post of

Health Worker (Female) and to treat the

application form submitted by the petition

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