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
17 paragraphs · 291 wordsHeard Mr. Vinit Boris Ekka, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due
to COVID-19 pandemic.
I.A. No. 5895 of 2020 has been filed for impleading one of the successful candidate namely, Anu (name and address is disclosed in para 2 of the I.A.)
as party respondent no. 3 in the writ petition on the ground that she has obtained lesser marks than the petitioner but inspite of that she has been
appointed. This fact has been disclosed in para 2 of the said interlocutory application.
Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that objection was sought by 16.03.2020 whereas the petitioner has
approached to the respondents by way of filing representation on 26.06.2020. He submits that the said interlocutory application may kindly be
dismissed.
The Court perused the reasons assigned in para 2 of the interlocutory application. If the illegality is there, the same cannot be allowed to continue.
In view of the statements made in para 2 of the said interlocutory application, prayer made in the interlocutory application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to make necessary correction and array the said Anu as party-respondent no. 3 in the writ petition.
Let notice be issued upon the newly added respondent no. 3 under registered cover with A/D as well as by ordinary process.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will file requisites within a week.
Let him do so.
I.A. No. 5895 of 2020 stands allowed and disposed of.
Post the matter after appearance of the respondent no. 3.