A writ petition challenging a 1997 appointment was dismissed due to the petitioner's absence and the likelihood of subsequent advertisements, rendering the matter futile to examine.
None. The writ petition is dismissed.
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.
O.J.C. No.15371 of 1997
3.9.2015 None appears for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of the opposit
e party no.2 as Anganwadi Worker of Nuagaon-1 Anganwadi centre.
In this case the appointment of the opposite party no.2 having been made on 29.09.1997
has been challenged, after lapse of 18 years none represented the petitioner for disclosing p
resent status of the Anganwadi centre because this Court has been informed that advertisement
is being issued frequently for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for different centers and there
is every likelihood that from 1997 several advertisements might have been issued.
Considering this aspect of the matter and also considering the fact that no one repres
ented the petitioner hence the writ petition is dismissed.
S. N. Prasad, J.
2
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker after 18 years of delay should be allowed for lack of representation.
Unnamed Petitioner
Unnamed Opposite Party No.2
S. N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court