Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/49/2026 of LT COL DEEPAK KUMAR THAKUR Vs INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 5 February 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSB No.49 of 2026 Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Rahul Verma (through V.C.) and Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsels for the petitioner. 2. Mr.
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.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPSB No.49 of 2026
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Rahul Verma (through V.C.) and Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsels for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents through video conferencing.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The challenge in this petition is to the advertisement dated 19.12.2025 issued by the respondent no.2 to the extent it invites online application for the post of ‘Institute Engineer’ in IIT Roorkee.
5. The second relief is that respondents should not terminate the services of the petitioner till the completion of deputation period.
6. Today, Mr. Vipul Sharma, counsel for the respondents made a statement before the Court that the advertisement impugned in the writ petition does not pertain to the stream of the petitioner. Rather, it pertains to a regular post on which one Mr. Ajay Sharma was working who retired on 25.06.2025.
7. The next submission of the counsel for the respondents is that the services of the petitioner have been extended with effect from 24.09.2025 to 23.09.2026.
The respondents’ counsel also pointed out that Clause 6 of the terms and condition and the offer of appointment dated 04.09.2024, the said Clause, inter alia, states “during the tenure, the services are liable of termination with three months notice in writing would be given by either side”. The counsel for the respondents makes a submission that in the eventuality, the respondent-Institute wishes to terminate the services of the petitioner there shall be adherence to the said Clause.
8. In view of the above, the apprehension and the anxiety as being shown by the petitioner does not exist.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition and the Urgency Application (IA No.2 of 2026) are disposed of accordingly.
[
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
Vacation Judge
05.02.2026
Ravi