Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1524 (UTT)

DR. ABHISHEK RASTOGI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/20/2017 · 2025-03-24

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2106-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No. 20 of 2017 With WPSB No. 17 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 1. None present for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Devendra Bohra, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 4. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSB No. 20 of 2017 alone are being considered. 5. Principal, Government Medical College, Haldwani invited applications from the eligible persons for walk-in- interview, which was scheduled to be held on 20.10.2016. Petitioner appeared in the said interview but he was not selected. Thereafter, another advertisement was issued on 07.12.2016, fixing 12.01.2017 as date of interview. 6. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to declare his result of walk-in-interview for the post of Assistant Professor held on 20.10.2016. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that 2025:UHC:2106-DB since no candidate, who appeared for interview on 20.10.2016, was found to be suitable, therefore, fresh applications were invited by issuing another advertisement. He further submits that walk-in-interview was held for appointment to faculty positions in the Medical College on contract basis for a period of two years. Thus, he submits that since the walk-in-interview in question was held in 2017 and the person, who got selected, was given appointment for a period of two years on contract, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous, as the relief, claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted at this belated stage. 8. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed, as infructuous. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.03.2025 Aswal 2025:UHC:2106-DB