Dismissed
Asha Rani v. Director of Education & Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/9183/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHA RANI
..... Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Indrani Ghose and Ms. Nidhi Jacob, Advs.
versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Angel Bhardwaj and Mr. Hazil Bhardwaj, Advs. for R-2, 3 & 4. Ms. Sakshi Popli, Adv. for Department of Education.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R
% 05.10.2016
Mr. Rakesh Tiku, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 appears on receipt of advance copy. He states that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the prayers sought in it because the examination of the witnesses is underway in the inquiry proceedings and which are being held pursuant to the orders of this Court in writ petition No. 3525 of 2016. He states that an inquiry is being conducted against the petitioner under the Delhi School Education Rules.
In WP (C) 3525/2016, this Court on 30.05.2016 had directed the
respondents to expedite the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner and preferably conclude the same within two months from 01.08.2016. The said order had also allowed the petitioner to appear as a Defence Assistant apropos the other ten teachers before the Inquiry Officer.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet runs into 300 pages and she wants some more time to complete the cross examination. On a specific query put to her, she submits that she requires approximately a month for leading her evidence.
Mr. Rakesh Tiku, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that only about four witnesses of the school remain to be examined and the evidence of the respondents can be completed within seven days. Let it be so done.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she will take about 25 days to complete her evidence and will make a similar request before the Inquiry Officer (E.O).
It is for the E.O. to consider such request when made and to conclude the proceedings as directed by the Court and as per law.
In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that she does not wish to pursue the writ petition and seeks to withdraw the same without prejudice to her rights and contentions. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. This Court has expressed no view on the merits of the case.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
OCTOBER 05, 2016/ acm
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP (C) 3525/2016Referred¶14
Asha Rani
Director of Education
Najmi Waziri
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