Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1087 (UTT)

PIYUSH PANI VIMAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/57/2025 · 2025-01-10

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:484 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 57 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. By the instant writ petition the petitioner is praying for the direction to the respondents that the respondents be directed to give the NOC since the petitioner has been selected in respect of Haridwar for post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Institution of District Haridwar. 4. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was already selected and appointed in district Tehri Garhwal on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Institution, however a fresh selection process was initiated in district Haridwar in which he has been selected, but the respondents are not giving NOC to join at Haridwar. 5. It appears that the NOC is not being given to the petitioner because of the reason that the petitioner already selected and appointed in district Tehri Garhwal. The post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Institution are district wise selection and since the petitioner has already been selected in district Tehri Garhwal, therefore, it appears that only because of this reason the NOC is not being given. 6. For redressal of his grievance, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the competent authority within a week. If such a representation is made, the respondents may take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. 7. In view of the direction as made above, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.01.2025 PR 2025:UHC:484