Petitioners sought quashing of a communication that all RIMC January 2025 admission seats were filled and mandamus for admission on vacant seats. On joint request, the Court disposed of the petition directing respondent no.2 to treat it as a representation and decide it within two weeks, without expressing any opinion on merits.
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.
2025:UHC:4756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
10th JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION NO.965 OF 2025 (M/S)
Rajat Sharma and four Others through their natural guardians ..... Petitioners
..... Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and Another
..…Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the communication dated 25.03.2025 (Annexed as Annexure No.5 to this Writ Petition) received from the office of the respondent no.2, wherein they have informed that all the available seats for admission into RIMC for the term of January, 2025 has been filed.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give admission to the petitioners herein on the basis of the final select list on All India Basis in class VIII on vacant seats in pursuance to the All India Examination subsequent to the notification by the respondent no.2 dated 19.02.2024.
(iii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
1
2025:UHC:4756
(iv) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.”
2. Heard Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the Commandant, Rashtriya Indian Military College (RIMC), Dehradun, the respondent no.2, to consider the present writ petition as the representation of the petitioners and decide the same as expeditiously as possible.
4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has sought two weeks’ time for deciding the representation.
5. On the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to consider the present writ petition as representation of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with relevant rules etc. as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two weeks’ from the date of production of the certified copy of this order along with the copy of the present writ petition.
2
2025:UHC:4756
6. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt : 10.06.2025
Pant/
3
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Commandant, RIMC Dehradun be directed to consider the writ petition as a representation regarding RIMC admission seats and decide it expeditiously?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajat Sharma and four Others through their natural guardians
The Union of India
Alok Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
