A public interest litigation challenging the selection process for Lab Technician posts on grounds of reusing question papers was dismissed. The court noted the selection process had attained finality and the petition was neither maintainable under cited precedent nor substantive issues remained.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
2024:UHC:6329-DB
I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL
HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MS. RI TU BAHRI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE RAKESH THAPLI YAL
W RI T PETI TI ON ( PI L) No.1 4 6 OF 2 0 2 4
Sanjay Singh Koranga …Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Pant. Counsel for the State/ 1 : Mr. B.S. Parihar, Ms. Rajni Supyal. Counsel for the respondent no.2 Mr. Ramji Shrivastava.
JUDGMENT : ( per Ms. Rit u Bah r i, C.J.)
This PIL is challenging the selection process of the post of Lab Technician on the ground that the question papers of the practice period and 85% questions of this selection process were same. However, the perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge at Annexure no.8, page 160 of the writ petition, shows that some of the candidates had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WPSS No.113 of 2024, and they had withdrawn the said writ petition, as they were seeking the directions to the respondents to declare the result of this examination. Pursuant to the order, the writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition after declaration of the result.
2024:UHC:6329-DB
has now attained finality as final result has already been declared on 03.08.2024. Now the only cause of action to challenge the selection process is of those candidates who participated and were not selected.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ RI TU BAHRI , C.J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ RAKESH THAPLI YAL, J.
Dated: 03.09.2024 NR/
Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH NITESH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc 3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa 0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, RAWA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C4 47434E89897BCDC0B6567DC T E4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F 3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Date: 2024.09.09 16:18:12 +05'30'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable to challenge the selection process for Lab Technician posts as the matter has already attained finality.
Whether to allow the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to seek alternative remedies.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West BengalReferred¶14
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
Sanjay Singh Koranga
State of Uttarakhand
Ritu Bahri
Rakesh Thapliyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
