2025:UHC:3277-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. 119 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. S. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no. 7. 4. Petitioner participated in a selection for appointment as Assistant Professor in Kumaon University, pursuant to advertisement dated 21.04.2010. Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the said selection while respondent nos. 4 & 5 were appointed as Assistant Professor (Sanskrit). Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition in March, 2017 seeking the following reliefs:- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of circurioree quashing the select list dated 17/11/2010 (Annexure No. 3) so for concern to the respondent no. 4&5 and its concicusial effect like promotion etc. of respondent no. 4&5. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of cercuioree quashing the latter dated 03/09/2015 (Annexure No. 12) And latter / report dated 29/12/2016 sent by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.14 colly ) and Action Taken by 127 Executive Member of Executive Council. (Annexure No. 10) (iii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 &3 to declared the result showing the rank and marks of the petitioner examine the candidate of the all selected candidates as U.G.C. regulation 2009-10.” 2025:UHC:3277-DB 5. Petitioner also challenged appointment of respondent nos. 4 & 5 before the Chancellor under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. His representation was dismissed by the Chancellor. Petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 515 of 2017, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2025. 6. Since the contentions raised by petitioner in this writ petition have been considered in the judgment dated 24.03.2025 rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 515 of 2017, therefore, this writ petition is also liable to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 515 of 2017. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that two orders of appointment were issued in favour of Dr. Smt. Lajja Pant Bhatt (respondent no. 4 herein), however, when asked whether there is any such pleading in the said writ petition, answer of the learned counsel is in the negative. 8. In our humble opinion, it will make no difference if two orders of appointment were mistakenly issued in favour of respondent no. 4 and this will not render her appointment illegal. The fact remains that she was appointed as Assistant Professor (Sanskrit) and she is holding only one post of Assistant Professor, for which she was selected. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment dated 24.03.2025 rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 515 of 2017. (Ashish Naithani, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 30.04.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da 82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643 AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.05.03 13:50:13 -07'00'