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 · 288 wordsW. Diengdoh, J
Heard Dr. N. Mozika, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case is similarly situated with a batch of petition, namely WP(C) No.567 of 2025, WP(C) 568 of 2025 and WP(C) 569 of 2025 pending before this Court, wherein this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 has observed that the service of the writ petitioner therein shall not be disturbed and the respondent shall not issue any advertisement against the vacant post.
Being similarly situated the learned Senior Counsel has urged that similar order may be passed as far as this instant case is concerned.
Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG in all fairness has also agreed with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to say that there are indeed similar and identical writ petitions pending before this Court and therefore since interim order has been passed in the said petitions, there is no objection to any such kind of order being passed in this case.
Accordingly, at the first instance this writ petition is hereby admitted, the respondent being duly represented by the learned AG, no formal notice is required to be issued upon the respondent.
In consonance with the order passed by this Court dated 12.11.2025 (Supra), this Court hereby directs that the service of the writ petitioner shall not be disturbed and the respondent shall not issue any advertisement as against the post held by the petitioner.
The interim order will remain in force till the next returnable date. The respondent to file their counter affidavit within the next date fixed.
List this petition along with WP(c) No. 438 of 2025 on 04.02.2026.