Petition declared infructuous due to Supreme Court order; directions complied within 12 weeks; petition and application disposed of with no further directions.
Petition and pending application disposed; no further directions issued.
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.
$~28
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC versus ROHIT KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Seema Sindhu and Ms. Apsana Khtoon, Advocates. Mr. Jatin Parashar, Advocate for Mr. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate for R-1 to R- 15 & R-17 to R-21
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
O R D E R % 06.02.2020
S.MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
FEBRUARY 06, 2020 / rhc
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Sumit KumarApplied¶8
SLP (C) 18743/2018 Union of India v. Sumit Kumar
Staff Selection Commission and Ors.
Rohit Kumar and Ors.
S. Muralidhar
Talwant Singh
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
