This single-judge order dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, accepting the submission that the petitioner had been promoted to posts of A.S.I. and subsequently S.I. during the pendency of the petition.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.
| 1SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPSS No.1739 of 2016 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. 1. Mr. Deepak Petshali, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition has been filed by him for promotion on the post of Hawaldar/Driver in I.T.B.P. But, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has now been promoted to the post of A.S.I. according to him, and thereafter on the post of S.I. Therefore, the grievance raised in this writ petition has already been redressed. 5. In view of this new development, the writ petition has rendered infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.12.2023 Arti |
Writ Petitioner
Union of India
Pankaj Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
