Petitioner aggrieved by change of job nomenclature sought relief. Court disposed of the petition relying on a prior judgment (Writ Petition No.1204 of 2014) covering similar controversy.
Writ petition disposed of on the same terms as Writ Petition No.1204 (S/S) of 2014. 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.2118 of 2014
Bidhya Karnatak ……….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….… Respondents
Present: Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, 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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of on the same terms as Writ Petition No.1204 (S/S) of 2014.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Badri Singh BhainsoraVs. State of Uttarakhand & othersFollowed¶6
Writ Petition No.1204 (S/S) of 2014, Badri Singh Bhainsora Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others
Bidhya Karnatak
State of Uttarakhand
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
