High CourtsDivision Bench

Saheel Ahmad & Others vs Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Vipdan Board & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 UK CK 1897

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ · Subhash Upadhyay, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal No. 42 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

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 · 363 words

Manoj Kumar Gupta C.J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 12.02.2026 passed in WPSS No.239 of 2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by Managing Director, State Krishi Utpadan Vipdan Board, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar has been dismissed as premature. The order impugned in the writ petition examines certain issues and thereafter directs for publication of a provisional seniority list within one week.

3.

Learned Single Judge has observed that, since the effect of the order impugned in the writ petition is that a provisional seniority list would be published, the appellants have right to file objections against the same. It has further been observed that, in case any objections are filed, the competent authority shall consider all objections and thereafter finalize the seniority list as per law.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that the impugned order alters the settled seniority list and, therefore, seriously affects the appellants.

5.

It is not disputed before us that although certain aspects have been considered while passing the order dated 15.01.2026 but, at the same time, the operative part of the order directs publication of provisional seniority list, meaning thereby, that it shall still be open to any person aggrieved by the provisional seniority list to file objections, as such we do not find any illegality in the order of learned Single Judge in declining to examine the challenge at this stage.

6.

As apprehension has been expressed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that because of certain observations made in the order of the Managing Director dated 15.01.2026, which was under challenge in the writ petition, the concerned respondent would be influenced while deciding the objections, we clarify that, in the event, any objection is filed against the provisional seniority list, the same shall be decided on its own merit, without being influenced by any observations made in the order dated 15.01.2026.

7.

With the above observation and clarification, the appeal stands disposed of.

8.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.