SIDARTH KOTNALA Vs. CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Very briefly put, the case of the appellant is as follows:

(3.) The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition. In this regard, he took note of the following facts: Respondent No. 4 is senior to the appellant and, in the criminal trial, respondent No. 4 has been acquitted. The learned Single Judge lamented the fact that sealed cover procedure was not adopted and, therefore, the name of respondent No. 4 should have been recommended. Noting the fact that the name of respondent No. 4 has been sent by the authorized controller, the Chief Education Officer was directed to take a decision within two weeks, making it clear, however, that the vacancy shall be deemed to have come into effect on 20.07.2012 and the claim of respondent No. 4 shall be considered after that date.