Allowed

Dr. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 May 2017CWP/845/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the petitioner to be considered in the next counseling round scheduled for 16.5.2017. The direction is based on a statement by the petitioner not to challenge the first counseling round and citations from the Apex Court and a prior judgment by this court.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in the next counseling and granting him incentive marks as decided earlier.

Dr. Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Hp — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 845 of 2017 Date of Decision: 4.5.2017

¶3

Dr. Mukesh Kumar …..Petitioner.

¶4

Versus State of H.P. and Ors. ….Respondents. Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge .

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma & Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals.

¶8

Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral)

¶9

We are informed that the next counseling is to take place on 16.5.2017.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent(s) No.2/3 to also consider the case of the petitioner in the next counseling to be held on 16.5.2017, in the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

…2…

¶13

(2016) 9 SCC 749, as well as this Court in CWP No. 581 of 2017, titled as Dr. Aarti Dhatwalia v. State of H.P. and Ors ., as also notification No. HFW-B(B) 14-3/2009-Loose dated 20.3.2017, as referred to in the prospectus itself and the petitioner shall be entitled to the incentive marks in terms of the decision rendered by this Court.

¶14

Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, under instructions, states that petitioner shall not lay any challenge to the first round of counseling, which statement is taken on record. As such, as prayed for, we direct that petitioner’s case shall be considered for the counseling only to be held hereinafter. Needless to add, petitioner shall complete all formalities which are required to be complied with in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of .

¶15

( Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice 4^th May, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ), Manjit Judge.

Dr. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cskhpkv Vs Dr. Praveen Kumar Sharma

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education Vs Union of India

State of Hp Vs Gurdial Pal

Ms Naresh Tour and Travel Vs Uco Bank

Ms Divyang Associates(P) Ltd. Vs Hp.State Indu.Development Corpn.