Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Syed Irfanullah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 April, 2018

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                           W.P.(C) No.4963 of 2011

         1. Syed Irfanullah, Son of S.M. Karim, Resident of Bangla Road
            Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S.- Lohardaga, Dist.- Lohardaga,
            Jharkhand
         2. Avinash Prasad Sinha, Son of Baidyanath Prasad Sinha,
            Resident of P.O. & P.S.- Lohardaga, Dist.- Lohardaga,
            Jharkhand                             ...    ...      Petitioners
                                Versus
         1. The State of Jharkhand,
         2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
            Govt. of Jharkhand, AT- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
            Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi
         3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Human
            Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
            AT- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi
         4. Jharkhand Academic Council through its Chairman, At-
            Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi
         5. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, At- Bargawan,
            P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi
         6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council,
            At- Bargawan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi
                                            ...      ...       Respondents
                                ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deva Kant Roy, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. D.K. Dubey, Sr. S.C.-I For the Resp.-J.A.C. : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate

---

05/25.04.2018 Heard Mr. Deva Kant Roy, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition has become infructuous because the matter relates to advertisement issued by Jharkhand Academic Council vide advertisement no. 74/2011 and the counsel for the respondents further submits that the examination has already been conducted and the appointments have already been made and nothing survives in the writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to controvert the statement made by the counsel for the respondents and 2 accordingly, the writ petition has become infructuous and is dismissed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj