Disposed
Susama Pradhan v. State
Orissa HCWP(C)/1010/2004
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
None appears for the petitioners at the time…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
W.P.(C) No. 1010 of 2004
The petitioners have filed this writ application seeking to quash the notification and the list under Annexures-5(a) and 5(b) respectively.
Mr. S.Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the list prepared under Annexure-5(a) was set aside in view of report of the vigilance authority and thereafter a fresh advertisement was issued and the post has been filled up. The said advertisement has not been challenged and by efflux of time the writ application has become infructuous.
In view of the above, the writ application stands disposed of as infructuous.
…………….………………
DR. B.R. SARANGI,J.
GDS
DR. B. R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court