Disposed

Ritu Sharma v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Dec 2011CWPOA/12440/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an order dismissing the Constitution Bench petition for non-prosecution, restoring it for merits. Respondents 1 and 2 were deleted. The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to Respondent No.3 within one month for a final decision on re-engagement of services within two months.

What did the court decide?

Recalled order of dismissal for non-prosecution; petition dismissed with direction to submit representation to respondent No.3 for final decision on re-engagement of services.

Ritu Sharma Vs State — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP (T) No. 12440 of 2008. Decided on: 1.12.2011.

¶3

___________________________________________________________ Ms. Ritu Sharma … Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Committee DAV College, Daulatpur Chowk & ors. … Respondents.

¶6

___________________________________________________________ Coram:

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. for respondent No.3. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.4. Respondent No.5 ex parte .

¶9

___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral).

¶10

CMP No. 333 of 2011 :

¶11

Reply not to be filed.

¶12

Heard. The application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, is allowed in view of the grounds stated therein. Consequently, order dated 14.10.2011, whereby the main petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, shall stand recalled and the petition restored to its original number for disposal on merits.

¶13

In view of the subsequent events, respondents No. 1

¶14

& 2 shall stand deleted from the array of respondents to the present petition.

¶15

The application stands disposed of.

¶16

CWP (T) No. 12440 of 2011 :

¶17

The petition has been filed on the following

¶18

substantive prayer vide para 7 (i):-

¶19

“That in view of the facts and circumstances as narrated in the foregoing paras above, it is submitted that by way of interim measures respondents No. 1 and 2 may very kindly be directed to re-engage the services of the applicant provisionally during the

¶20

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

¶21

¶22

pendency of the original application in this Hon’ble Court, to secure the ends of law and justice.”

¶23

There is no reply as yet.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner moving a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, to respondent No.3 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of judgment, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within further two months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No.5, if so desired.

¶25

The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

(V.K. Sharma) Judge.

¶28

December 1, 2011. (cr)

Ritu Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritu Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Devi Vs State

Padam Singh Vs Baldev

Onkar Singh Vs Csk Kvv

Atma Ram Vs State

Sukh Dev Vs State

Mehar Singh Vs State