NAGENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The delay in preferring the appeal is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

(2.) Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, Sri J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder and Sri Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and, with their consent, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(3.) While two persons had filed the writ petition, only one of them has preferred this appeal. Sri T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the other individual, who had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has left the services of the second respondent; and, since it is only the appellant who is continuing in service, this appeal is confined only to him and not to the other.