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
6 paragraphs · 234 wordsDeepak Roshan, J
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order issued under Memo No. 2507 dated 01.03.2022 (Annexure-3) whereby respondent no.5 has cancelled the promotion granted to these petitioners on the post of Overman Grade A vide office order dated 25.04.2020 without following principle of natural justice.
At the outset, Mr. M. B. Lal learned counsel for the respondents relying upon para 26 of the counter affidavit submits that the impugned order dated 01.03.2022 has been withdrawn as such the grievance of the petitioners has been redressed.
Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequent to this withdrawal as stated by learned counsel for the respondents a fresh order has been passed whereby the petitioners have been granted promotion from the year 2022 as such the petitioners may be given liberty to challenge the said order in appropriate time before appropriate forum.
In view of the fair submission of learned counsel for the parties, since the impugned order dated 01.03.2022 has been withdrawn which is clear from para 26 of the counter-affidavit no grievance exists as on date. So far as other contention of the petitioners is concerned, they would be at liberty to approach before appropriate forum for the fresh promotional order.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ application stands disposed of.