Rajinder Kumar Kaushal vs State of H.P.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.(Oral)—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.11.2014, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 9009 of 2013 titled Rajinder Kumar Kaushal v. State of H.P. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be partly allowed and Annexure P1 was quashed and set aside, hereinafter referred to as ''the impugned judgment'', for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

It appears that the petitioner had questioned Annual Confidential Report, for short, "ACR" recorded by the respondents, containing Annexures P1 and P3, before the Writ Court.

It is moot question-whether the Writ Court can interfere? We leave this question open.

The Writ Court has interfered and quashed Annexure P1. Now the appellant/petitioner is aggrieved that the Writ Court should have quashed Annexure P3 also. Less said is better. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file representation before the competent authority for seeking appropriate remedy.

Having said so, the LPA is dismissed along with pending applications, if any.