In a civil writ petition invoking Article 226, the petitioner challenged an order appointing another as Director. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous upon finding the petitioner had retired from service.
Petition dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's retirement from service.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 391 of 1995 Date of decision:- 06.07.2011
Dr. R.L.Mittal
....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present:Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anshul Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)
The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.1994, vide which, respondent No.2 is appointed as Director Research and Medical Education, Punjab.
Since the petitioner is stated to have retired from service, therefore, this petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
06th of July, 2011 ajp
(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of an impugned order allowing appointment, filed by a retired petitioner, maintains maintainability.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. R.L. Mittal
State of Punjab
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
