Disposed
Abdul Malik v. Directorate of Education & Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/17344/2004
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.
$~R-22
ABDUL MALIK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Nischal, Advocate with Mr. Arun Nischal, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathy, ASC with Mr. Rizwan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Pradeep Kaushik, L.A. Zone-27 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R
% 10.01.2017
following order:-
“1. Mr. Siddiqui has come back with instructions. He says that in so far as respondent no.2 is concerned, the matter could be settled with the petitioner on the following lines:-
(i). Respondent no.2 would take up the petitioner’s case with the Managing Committee for regularising the period during which the petitioner officiated as Vice-Principal; the period in issue being 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2010.
(ii). On the Managing Committee accepting the proposal of respondent no.2, to regularise the period of officiation, respondent no.2 shall release 5% of the amount in issue to the petitioner; which of
course would be routed through the respondent no.1.
(iii). Respondent no.2, shall include in its proposal, a suggestion that the Managing Committee should make a suitable recommendation to respondent no.1, for release of the balance 95% of the dues commensurate with its acceptance of the proposal to regularise the aforementioned period of officiation.
2.1 Mr. Dubey says that if this proposal goes through, he will not press his relief for promotion to the post of Principal, in view of the fact that the petitioner, has already retired from service.
be the sole person who satisfies the eligibility criteria for being appointed as the Principal of the respondent no.2-school.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JANUARY 10, 2017 Ne
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be confirmed as Principal for the period 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2010 if he was the sole eligible candidate.
Abdul Malik
Directorate of Education
Valmiki J. 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