Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/216/2024 of MARGREAT SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 10 January 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS SPA No.216 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel for the appellant. 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
SPA No.216 of 2024
Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i J. Hon ’ble Siddh ar t h a Sah , J.
Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos.1 & 2.
3. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
4. This intra-court appeal is directed against judgment dated 08.07.2024 rendered by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.1187 of 2024. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine. The reason for dismissal is assigned in para 7 which is extracted below: - “7.Undisputedly, the last date of submission of the application form is 11.01.2021 and the petitioner has approached this Court at a very later stage, therefore this Court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the selection process was initiated by the advertisement dated 11.03.2024 and the last date for submission of application was 01.04.2024. He, thus, submits that the reason indicated for dismissing the writ petition is factually incorrect, as the writ petition was dismissed only on the ground that the deadline for submitting application expired in 2021, which is not actually the case.
6. Having regard to the submission made by Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, this Court thinks that the appropriate remedy to the appellant would be to file an application seeking review of the order dated 08.07.2024.
7. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum, seeking review.
8. Protection granted by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today.
[
( Siddh ar t h a Sah , J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i J.) 10.01.2026 BS/ Akash