The single-judge bench dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the impugned transfer order had been cancelled by the issuing authority.
No relief granted; petition dismissed.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPSS No. 1061 of 2023 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Ms. Sudha Tamta, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. |
|||
| 2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos.1 to 3. |
|||
| 3. Short counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3, is taken on record. Miscellaneous Application (IA/2/2023) made therefor stands disposed of. 4. In this short counter affidavit, it has been stated that impugned transfer order dated 26.06.2023 issued by the Regional Additional Director (Secondary Education), Kumaun Region, Nainital has been cancelled on 26.07.2023 and resultantly, the grievances of the petitioner has been redressed. Thus, writ petition has rendered infructuous. |
|||
| 5. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. In this view of the mater, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. |
|||
| (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.12.2023 PN |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed or dismissed as infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Pankaj Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
