Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3399 (UTT)

SATISH CHANDRA PANT A/A v. CHANCELLOR

WPSB/423/2016 · 2025-06-19

G Narendar, Subhash Upadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5179-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 19TH JUNE, 2025 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 423 OF 2016 Satish Chandra Pant …...Petitioner. Versus Chancellor, G.B. Pant University & others …….Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya and Mr. Tushar Upadhyaya, learned counsel. Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents- University. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before the Court the order of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No.412 of 2016, disposed of on 23.02.2023. 3. The said writ petition came to be preferred by a candidate whose appointment was challenged and set- aside. While so rejecting the writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench has upheld the order passed by the Chancellor and which, is incidentally impugned in the instant writ petition too, for the limited extent of the order cancelling the selection process. 1 2025:UHC:5179-DB 4. The order having been upheld in its entirety, this Bench cannot sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. In that view, the instant writ petition requires to be rejected. 5. That apart, we see that the relief sought for is for the continuation of the selection process after the removal of the appointed candidate. The selection process having attained completion, whether such a right is vested in a candidate, is question in itself. No candidate has a vested right of appointment. On that account also, the instant writ petition requires to be rejected. 6. Be that as it may, primarily in view of the affirmation of the order by the Co-ordinate Bench, the instant writ petition requires to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel thereto, pending application, if any, shall stand closed. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 19th June, 2025 NISHANT 2 NISHANT KUMAR Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b 326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690 560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2025.06.25 18:04:28 +05'30'