This order disposed of a writ petition challenging admission eligibility. The Court held the petition infructuous as Petitioner No.2 failed a qualifying paper for the B.A. programme, rendering them ineligible for the M.A. (Russian) Programme. It vacated an interim order.
Petition disposed of as infructuous; interim order vacated.
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.
$~2
SHRI RITIK KUMAR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr Kabir Dixit and Mr Waheb Hussaini, Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr Amit Bansal, Ms Seema Dolo and Ms Surbhi Mehta, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 05.10.2016
As directed, The confidential result of the petitioner No.2, has been produced, in a sealed cover. As per the result, petitioner No. 2 has not qualified in one paper of part-III qualifying B.A. programme.
In view of the fact that the petitioner No.2 has not passed the qualifying examination, the petitioner is not eligible for admission to the M.A. (Russian) Programme.
The petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. The interim order stands vacated.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 05, 2016/ ‘sn’
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a W.P. challenging admission eligibility should be disposed of as infructuous when the applicant failed the qualifying exam.
Shri Ritik Kumar Singh & Ors.
University of Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva
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
