Petitioner challenged appointment orders regarding change in post nomenclature from Assistant Coordinator. Court disposed of the petition on the same terms as a previously decided connected writ petition without independent reasoning.
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.2090 of 2014
Ramesh Chandra Joshi ……….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….… Respondents
Present: Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
2
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 08.12.2014
ML
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of on the same terms as the earlier judgment in W.P. No.1204 (S/S) of 2014.
Whether the change in nomenclature of posts from Assistant Coordinator to Cluster Resource Persons and Block Resource Persons affects the appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & othersFollowed¶3
Writ Petition No.1204 (S/S) of 2014, Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others
Ramesh Chandra Joshi
State of Uttarakhand
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
