The High Court of Delhi disposed of an appellate petition regarding a writ application concerning appointments. Counsel clarified that a stay was not sought and the issue would be raised before the single Judge in the writ petition.
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.
AJAY KUMAR KAUSHIK ..... Appellant
Through Mr. K. Venkatraman, Advocate.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Advocate for Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Aakash Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
O R D E R % 11.07.2016
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who states that his application for stay CM No. 16627/2016 has not been dealt with and examined in the order dated 25th May, 2016.
After some hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not asking for stay of the examination, but if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, he should not be denied relief because appointments are made. It will be open to the petitioner to raise the said contention before the learned single Judge. In case the petitioner succeeds, then the Court will be
entitled to pass appropriate orders.
The appeal is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J. JULY 11, 2016 VKR
AJAY KUMAR KAUSHIK
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
SANJIV KHANNA
SUNITA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
