Anvita Patni v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 309
Key paragraphs
- Para 1616. For the reasons stated above, a writ of mandamus is hereby issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by awarding her quality points as per the U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules 1983 within a period of one…
- Para 1717. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) March 3,2006: NCM:
Judgment
In the circumstances, in view of the above discussions this Court is in full agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has wrongly been denied consideration of her case by not awarding her quality points. Therefore, writ petition deserves to be allowed.
#16. For the reasons stated above, a writ of mandamus is hereby issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by awarding her quality points as per the U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules 1983 within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner has obtained higher quality point marks than the marks obtained by the last person selected in the recruitment, the petitioner shall be given due credit so far her appointment is concerned on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T Grade, on the basis of quality point marks. The order shall be passed within a period of one month by giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade.
#17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) March 3,2006: NCM:
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 309.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 17 Jun 2002. The bench was RAJESH TANDON.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.