This CCH high court writ petition concerning seniority and promotion claims was dismissed as not maintainable due to the absence of necessary parties and the retirement of all concerned officers since the 1990 application, preventing effective relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ll.-il &11
.^^•^^
(,. !&
¥'
^"r
.^
BEK)R2 IH2 M''>iD 'A P%®E®iSI^TIS M3MINI ST^h'I'I VS
TRZBUI'AL^ PRENCIBAL BEKCH AT JA a^LgU R«
0»A» Ito. ^^°^> , 1990»
^
BET^EBN
APP1.IC5NT . G. C «^?api t s/o sb ri Kanhaiy al al Napi t r
agea atoout-42 years^ Sub- Engineer,
.%iral Sngineering Services^
Block Udalpur^ Disfct.'QurgAja M.p»
&1<D
^,-^
."-*(
KSSPONDSNT Sfcate of M»P, tlirough tihe
Secrefcary^ panchayat and .mral
©evelopm^ t D epa rtraen t^
v^llabh Bha\ran^ Aopal»
GETAILS OF ApPLICASICE
•'iSS
«3tAl5.S.h»i*-r»l-S.
-T^-T-
"^ ^Y^ -fse, j isM^
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR 7^
WPS No.244 of 2005
G.C.Napit
—-Petitioner
Versus
• StateOfM.P.AndOrs.
—Respondents
For Petitioner: Ms. PrithaGhoshal, Advocate For Respondent/State: Shri R. K. Gupta, Dy.AG
S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Order On Board
13/01/2017
Heard.
^)
was issued to them.
Sd/Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude
Tumane
<^
2 issues framed by the court
whether the petition is maintainable without impleading co-workers whose names were excluded from the temporary promotion list
whether effective relief can be granted when the officers involved have retired since the filing of the application
G. C. Napit
State of M.P.
V. V. Khanna
M. R. Rathore
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
