Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1539/2003 of SURENDRA KUMAR and ORS. Vs PRESIDING OFFICER and ANR. on 23 December 2003
COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1539 of 2003 Surendra Kumar and others ….Petitioner. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Lucknow and another ….Respondents. Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J. Heard Sri Gopal Narain leaned counsel for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.
Writ Petition No. 1539 of 2003
Surendra Kumar and others ….Petitioner.
Vs.
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Lucknow and another ….Respondents.
Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J.
Heard Sri Gopal Narain leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Aggarwal learned counsel for the respondent.
2- This is a petition filed for the following reliefs:- (a)Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 27.11.2003 published in the daily news paper Amar Juala date 30-11-2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). impugned advertisement dated 27.11.2003 published in the daily news paper Amar Juala date 30-11-2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).
(b) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 not to fillup the vacancy in pursuance of advertisement of 27.11.2003 till the disposal of the claim of the petitioners pending before respondent no.1. respondent no.2 not to fillup the vacancy in pursuance of advertisement of 27.11.2003 till the disposal of the claim of the petitioners pending before respondent no.1.
3- Learned counsel for the respondent referred to Annexure-7 of the petition to contend that the posts which have been advertised are different from the post on which the petitioners are working. Considering this contention the respondent no.2 can not be restrained to proceed with the recruitment according to rules in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.11.2003. The appointment to be made in view of the said advertisement shall not come in the way of finding to be recorded on merit according to law by respondent no.1. With this observation the petition is disposed of finally.
Dated: 23-12-2003
(Irshad Hussain, J.)
ISB