The High Court at Nainital disposed of a writ petition filed by an Assistant Teacher aggrieved by the nomenclature change of his deputed post. The Bench relied on a connected judgment regarding similar post changes.
The writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as in the connected writ petition. No order as to costs.
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.2113 of 2014
Himeshwar Prasad Gangwar ……….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….… Respondents
Present: Mr. P.S. Bisht, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
2
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 09.12.2014
ML
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment in Writ Petition No.1204 (S/S) of 2014 which changed nomenclature of posts.
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of on the same terms as the connected petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & othersDistinguished¶6
Writ Petition No.1204 (S/S) of 2014, Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others
Himeshwar Prasad Gangwar
State of Uttarakhand
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
