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
5 paragraphs · 168 wordsRajiv Sharma, J.
Heard Mr. K. D. Singh Kalhans, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amar Saran, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Vishal Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the relief No.1 for quashing of the seniority list dated 7.1.2009, but restricts his prayer that the persons junior to him have already been promoted and as such, he preferred a representation for his consideration for promotion from Assistant Basic Shiksaha Adhikari to Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the same may be decided by the competent authority.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the authority concerned to consider and decide the representation dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure 13), in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.