WPSS/183/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 258 UK

WPSS No.183 of 2021
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.C. Pandey, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on Stay Application (IA No.2 of 2021).

In the present writ petition, challenge is made to the order dated 09.09.2020, by which the procedure of appointment in the Co- operative Societies have been made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that preferential treatment on the basis of place of residence cannot be given in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Triveni Chandra Pandey Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, (2014) 1 UD 16, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2002) 6 SCC 562.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the place of residence, domicile and date of birth are distinct concepts. He referred to principles of law, as laid down in the case of Saurabh Chaudri and others Vs. Union of India & others, (2003) 11 SCC 146.

Stay application shall be finally heard after objections having been filed by the respondents.

List this case along with WPSS No.115 of 2021.

Since an advertisement has already been published by the respondents, they may continue with the process, but shall not declare the final result, till the next date of listing.

Meanwhile, counter affidavit be filed by the respondents.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) Vacation Judge 20.1.2021 AR