RAHUL SAXENA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSB /20/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: UKHC010002532026

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

WPSB /148/2026

Filing Date

05-01-2026

Registration No

WPSB /20/2026

Registration Date

05-01-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

SERVICE WRIT PETITION ( 1 )

Sub-Category

APPOINTMENT ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

RAHUL SAXENA

Adv. PULAK RAJ MULLICK,SAHIL MULLICK,SAHIL MULLICK, ,SAHIL MULLICK

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

DIRECTOR GENERAL

Adv. C.S.C.

DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION

Adv. C.S.C.

UTTARAKHAND MEDICAL SERVICE SELECTION BOARD

Adv. RAMJI SHRIVASTAVA

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION

Adv. YOGESH KUMAR PACHOLIA

RASHMI PANDEY

ATANU SEN

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

07-01-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

17-02-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

23-03-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

In WPSB No. 513 of 2025 (Ravita Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand), the High Court of Uttarakhand held that service of notice on respondents 6-11 was sufficient. Respondent No. 4 was granted two weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit, while the NMC confirmed that existing regulations on record suffice without a separate counter-affidavit. The case is adjourned for listing after two weeks along with the connected matter (WPSB No. 20 of 2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

In WPSB No. 513 of 2025 (Ravita Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand), the High Court of Uttarakhand held that service of notice on respondents 6-11 was sufficient. Respondent No. 4 was granted two weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit, while the NMC confirmed that existing regulations on record suffice without a separate counter-affidavit. The case is adjourned for listing after two weeks along with the connected matter (WPSB No. 20 of 2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case