Court disposed of writ petition on same terms as in a prior connected matter (WP No.1204 of 2014) regarding appointment nomenclature changes for educator coordinators.
No specific relief granted; case disposed on same terms as prior judgment.
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.2091 of 2014
Lilamber Pant & another ……….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….… Respondents
Present: Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
2
No.1204 (S/S) of 2014, Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, shall follow in the present writ petition.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 08.12.2014
ML
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the claim regarding appointment nomenclature change must be decided on same terms as in WP No.1204 of 2014.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & othersReferred¶7
Writ Petition No.1204 (S/S) of 2014, Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others
Lilamber Pant & another
State of Uttarakhand
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
