Anil Kumar v. Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal
Case brief
What is this about?
of 2015 Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.…
What did the court decide?
Correction of clerical error regarding the date of the seniority list in a previous order.
of 2015 Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.…
Correction of clerical error regarding the date of the seniority list in a previous order.
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.
WPSB No. 457 of 2015 Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj Chaturvedi and Sri Xitij Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel with Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Suyash Pant, and Sri J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Sri Alok Mahra, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. MCC Correction Application No. 227 of 2020
This application is filed, seeking rectification of the clerical error in our order, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 457 of 2015, dated 14.12.2019 wherein in Paragraphs 2 and 24, the date of the seniority-list is erroneously referred to as “28.02.2016”, while in Paragraph 7 of the order, the date of the seniority-list is correctly mentioned as 22.08.2016. Consequently, the date “28.02.2016” mentioned in Paragraphs 2 and 24 shall stand corrected and substituted as “22.08.2016”. A corrected copy of the order shall be made available, to the parties on payment, of the prescribed charges.
The Correction Application stands allowed accordingly.
(Alok Kr. Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 21.07.2020 21.07.2020 Rathour
Ramesh Ranganathan
Alok Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court