THE STATE OF TRIPURA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY vs SAHID ALI — C.A. No. 5360/2009

Case under Section XIV-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010326492006

Filing Date

12-Dec-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 5360/2009

Diary Number

32649/2006

Order Date

29-Aug-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XIV-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF TRIPURA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

    Adv. GOPAL SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAHID ALI

    Adv. SUJATA KURDUKAR SHISHIR DESHPANDE[R-1] SHISHIR DESHPANDE[R-2] SHISHIR DESHPANDE[R-4]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Aug-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 29-Aug-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

  4. 24-Aug-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 01-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 01-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 15-Dec-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 17-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 02-Sep-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 28-Jul-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 01-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 12-Mar-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 28-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 31-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 04-Dec-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 14-Nov-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 26-Sep-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 23-Aug-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 12-Dec-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 5360/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: C.A. No. 5360/2009 - The State of Tripura v. Sahid Ali On 29 August 2017, the Supreme Court allowed the State of Tripura's appeal and set aside the High Court's order. Respondents were selected as constables based on a 2001 advertisement but their appointment letters were cancelled when the State reduced the recruitment intake. The Court found no mala fide in the State's decision to reduce candidate numbers and held the High Court's directive for their appointment was unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case