Disposed

Amit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Sept 2021SPA/276/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal challenging an interim order provisionally permitting participation in a physical examination test and sealing results was disposed of. The court found no need to interfere as the appellant admitted being aggrieved only by the sealing condition, rendering the value of interfering otherwise futile.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal No. 276 of 2021 was disposed of without interference.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
	0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1		SPA No. 276 of 2021 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J. Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent no.1. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Advocate for respondent nos.2 &3. Appellant is challenging the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS Nos.956 of 2021, 957 of 2021 and 962 of 2021. Operative portion of the said order is reproduced below: - “Having heard the submissions, in view of the facts, as narrated herein before this Court is of a view that as an interim measure, the petitioners may be provisionally permitted to participate in the physical examination test. On behalf of respondent no.2, the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission, it is submitted that for female candidates, physical examination test is scheduled to be held on 03.08.2021 and for male candidates, it is scheduled to be held on 04.08.2021. Petitioners shall be permitted accordingly. However, the petitioners’ participation will be subject to the final outcome of these writ petitions, the results of the petitioners shall be kept in a sealed envelope, which shall not be opened without prior permission of this Court.” Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved only by the said portion of the aforesaid order which provides that “the results of the petitioners shall be kept in a sealed envelope, which shall not be opened without prior permission of this Court”. In the opinion of this Court, in the absence of the condition which has been challenged in this appeal, the interim order granted by learned Single Judge would have the effect ofgrantingfinal reliefat theinitial

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1

SPA No. 276 of 2021
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.
Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for the State/ respondent no.1.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Advocate for
respondent nos.2 &3.
Appellant
is
challenging
the
order
dated 02.08.2021 passed by learned Single
Judge in WPSS Nos.956 of 2021, 957 of
2021 and 962 of 2021. Operative portion of
the said order is reproduced below: -
“Having heard the submissions, in view of the facts, as
narrated herein before this Court is of a view that as an
interim measure, the petitioners may be provisionally
permitted to participate in the physical examination test.
On behalf of respondent no.2, the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission, it is submitted
that for female candidates, physical examination test is
scheduled to be held on 03.08.2021 and for male
candidates, it is scheduled to be held on 04.08.2021.
Petitioners shall be permitted accordingly. However, the
petitioners’ participation will be subject to the final
outcome of these writ petitions, the results of the
petitioners shall be kept in a sealed envelope, which shall
not be opened without prior permission of this Court.”
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
submits that the appellant is aggrieved only
by the said portion of the aforesaid order
which provides that “the results of the
petitioners
shall
be
kept
in
a
sealed
envelope, which shall not be opened without
prior permission of this Court”.
In the opinion of this Court, in the
absence of the condition which has been
challenged in this appeal, the interim order
granted by learned Single Judge would have
the effect ofgrantingfinal reliefat theinitial

stage, which would have rendered the writ petition infructuous. I n such view of the matter, we do not consider it worthwhile to interfere in this matter. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3
has assured that he shall file counter affidavit before learned Single Judge positively within three weeks. The appellant shall be at liberty to make prayer before learned Single Judge for urgent hearing of the matter. With the above observations, the Special Appeal No.276 of 2021 stands disposed of.
( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 Pant/ Neha

stage, which would have rendered the writ
petition infructuous. I n such view of the
matter, we do not consider it worthwhile to
interfere in this matter.
Mr.
N.S.
Pundir,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3

has assured that he shall file counter
affidavit
before
learned
Single
Judge
positively within three weeks. The appellant
shall be at liberty to make prayer before
learned Single Judge for urgent hearing of
the matter.
With
the
above
observations,
the
Special Appeal No.276 of 2021 stands
disposed of.

( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1
Pant/ Neha

Amit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Chandra Pant Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prerna Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandra Singh Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nasheema Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shashti Ballabh Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vinod Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand