J(Oral) dismissed this writ petition as frivolous, inordinate, and belated, noting that the petitioner's sister had already been awarded the job in the same department.
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 UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1863 OF 2011
Mohit Saini … Petitioner Vs
State of Uttar Pradesh & others … Respondents
Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, present for the petitioner. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel, present for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
2
been given Government Job in the department. Moreover, the petitioner refers to the Government Order dated 21.12.1981 where there is a provision to give job at least two members of a family, however, the petitioner has not annexed the same with the writ petition. Consequently his contention cannot be accepted.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
21.03.2014
ASWAL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Government Job under an order applying to families who had their land acquired.
Mohit Saini
State of Uttar Pradesh
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
