This court disposed of a writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits, directing the respondent to decide on a service regularization recommendation made by a third party.
Direction to opposite party no. 1 to decide on the recommendation within three months.
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. 409 of 2019
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties to regularize his service in the post of driver under opposite party no.1 within a stipulated time.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states the case of the petitioner has already recommended by opposite party no.3 in Annexure-3 on 31.12.2010 to opposite party no.1. Therefore, direction may be given to consider the same within a stipulated time.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the recommendation made by opposite party no.3 in Annexure-3 on 31.12.2010 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy this order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
Ashok
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be directed to regularize his service in the post of driver based on a prior recommendation?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite party no.1
Opposite party no.3
ASHOK
B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
