The High Court of Delhi directed the National Institute of Homeopathy to either call the petitioner, Dr. E.S. Rajendran, for the Director post interview or explain his exclusion within one week.
Direction to the first respondent to call the petitioner for the interview or intimate reasons for non-inclusion within a week.
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.
Date of Order: January 12, 2018
DR. E.S. RAJENDRAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava and Mr. Kshitiz Gautam, Advocates for respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R (ORAL)
Page 1 of 2
W.P.(C) 333/2018
petitioner had applied vide application (Annexure P-8) in August, 2017 and his colleague had received the interview call for the above-referred post just a week back. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no prejudice would be caused if petitioner is also called for the interview and if it is not so done, then this petition would become infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2018 s
Page 2 of 2
W.P.(C) 333/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner who claimed eligibility for the post of Director at NIH should be directed to be called for the interview.
Whether the respondent must disclose reasons for not calling the petitioner for the interview within a week.
Dr. E.S. Rajendran
The Union of India
Sunil Gaur
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
