The High Court disposed of a writ petition by consent, directing the respondents to treat the petition as a formal representation regarding the petitioner's promotion and decide it within three months.
To treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the entitlement to promotion within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
M.K. SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate.
versus
INDRAPRASTHA POWER GEN. CO. LTD. & ORS
..... Respondents Through: Mr. R.K. Vats and Ms. Kumari Alka, Advocates for R-1 and 2. Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate for R- 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
O R D E R % 02.12.2016
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 02, 2016/ AK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to consent to treat the writ petition as a representation for promotion and direct its expeditious decision.
M.K. Saini
Indraprastha Power Gen. Co. Ltd.
Valmi Ji Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
