AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 218 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.05.2002 whereby his representation was rejected and private respondents were declared senior to him.
On 23.04.2004, the following order was passed:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
There shall be no stay on the promotion. However, it is made clear that the promotion, if any, made hereinafter shall remain subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioner may place on record the orderis of promotion, if any, issued during the pendency of the writ petition and it will not be necessary for him to amend the petition, The competent authority is directed to specifically mention in the order of promotion that the same will be subiect to the final adjudication of C.W. P. No. 854 of 2003.”
Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner as well as private respondents have already retired on attaining the age of superannuation, thus, instant petition has rendered infructuous.
DISMISSED as having been rendered infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within three months from today, if cause survives.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.