Disposed

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC27 Mar 2015CWJC/1637/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held the writ application infructuous as the respondents admitted the petitioner's success in a revised result per Delhi HC directives. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case with others并按 law within the Delhi High Court's timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed as infructuous; direction to respondents to consider petitioner's case with others within Delhi High Court timeframe.

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1637 of 2015

¶2

====================================================== Santosh Kumar Yadav son of Shiv Bihari Yadav, resident of AtRamjanipur, P.O.- Kalgiganj Via Kahalgaon, P.S.- Kahalgaon, DistrictBhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

¶3

Versus

¶4

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Govt. of India New Delhi

¶5

1. The Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad through its Regional Director (CR) 8-AB, Beli Road, Allahabad- 211002

¶6

1. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission (CR), 8-AB, Beli Road, Allahabad- 211002

¶7

1. The Director General of Police, Border Security Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

¶8

1. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

¶9

1. The Director General of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

¶10

1. The Director General of Police, Shashtra Seema Bal, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

¶11

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi .... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Adv. Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha (CGC) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 27-03-2015 Learned counsel for the respondents having received instruction has submitted that in the revised result, the petitioner has been held to be successful and now the process of appointment of the petitioner along with others will be undertaken in accordance with law. He has also submitted that this has been done pursuant to the direction of the Delhi High Court.

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.1637 of 2015 (3) dt.27-03-2015

¶15

¶16

That being so, when the respondents are themselves prepared to re-consider the case of the petitioner, this writ application has become infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with others in accordance with the law within a timeframe as fixed by the Delhi High Court.

¶17

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶18

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶19

Rishi/-

¶20

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The Union Of India and Ors.

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

Mohammad Reyaz Vs The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank and Ors.

Ritesh Kumar Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

Vijay Paswan Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Pinky Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Balindra Kharwar Vs The State Of Bihar