AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel of the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief�s:
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 27.01.2006 (Annexure-No. 7) passed by the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Pauri.
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for regular promotion on the post of Nayab Tehsildar.
Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon�ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.
Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, wherein, it is stated in para No. 2(d) that the petitioner had retired from service, the writ petition has rendered infructuous and deserves to be dismissed as such.
It has also been stated in the 2 (a) of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was promoted by respondent No. 5 purely on stop gap arrangement for a period of 89 days on the post of Naib Tehsildar, therefore, the petitioner could not consider on the post of Nayab Tehsildar.
The petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007.
Since, the petitioner has retired, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
All pending applications stands disposed of.