The writ petition and connected application were disposed of as they became infructuous after the Petitioner's posting order was cancelled by the Respondents, thereby extending his tenure until June 30, 2019 or retirement.
The petition and application were disposed of as infructuous.
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.
$~6
SEP SUDHANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA Petitioner
Through: Ms. Archana Ramesh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms. Bharti Raju, CGSC with Ms. Sushila, Advocate for R-1 to R-3.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 04.12.2018
Learned counsel for the Respondents has produced before the Court a copy of the order dated 5th November 2018 passed by Deputy Director (C) (Civ) in the Directorate General of Sups & Tpt at the Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), cancelling the posting order of the Petitioner and extending his tenure up to 30th June 2019 or till his retirement whichever is earlier. In that view of the matter, the petition and application have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
DECEMBER 04, 2018/ nk
Sudhansu Sekhar Mohapatra
Union of India
S. Murialidhar
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
