AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J
[1] Present Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017, Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.231 of 2020 and Mr. S. Nepolean, learned GA for the State respondents in all the matters.
[2] Vide order dated 29.03.2023, this Court granted some time to Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.638 of 2017 to file application for bringing on record subsequent events. The prayer was objected by the learned senior counsel for the private respondent and the learned advocate for the JNIMS. However, this Court has given time for doing the needful and the matter is listed today, i.e., on 11.04.2023.
[3] Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 submits that due to some compelling reasons, the same could not be done and seeks some more time.
The prayer is strongly objected by the learned senior counsel for the private respondent and learned advocate for JNIMS as the declaration of DPC proceedings had been stayed vide order dated 11.09.2017 and since then, no promotion can be effected in the JNIMS with respect to this stream only.
[4] Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 needs some more time to file the application as permitted vide order dated 29.03.2023 in the interest of justice.
[5] Fix this matter on 24.04.2023 for hearing.
[6] The application if any may be filed with advance copy to the other parties.
[7] If the application sought for by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 is not filed on the next date, the matter will be heard on the available record.
[8] It is made clear that there will be no further adjournment on any ground.
[9] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the private respondent in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 prays that on the next date, if adjournment is sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017, the interim order may be vacated.
The prayer is opposed by Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.638 of 2017 as this Court have already rejected the application for vacation of the interim order dated 11.09.2017.
[10] It is made clear that if the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.638 of 2017 seeks any adjournment on the next date, the prayer for vacating the interim order will be considered.
[11] Fix on 24th April, 2023 for hearing after motion.