This order concerns a withdrawal of a writ petition regarding employment apprehension. The school respondent offered regular appointment from 01.12.2018 with no past claims. The petitioner accepted without dispute and was granted permission to withdraw the petition.
Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition as withdrawn.
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.
$~10
DHIRAJ KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi and Ms. Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Advocates with petitioner in person.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for R- 2 & R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2/ School submits that the said respondent is ready to appoint the petitioner as Computer Lab & AV Room Attendant on regular basis w.e.f 01.12.2018, however, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any past claims.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the same and has agreed to the submissions made by the respondent No.2/School.
In view of the above, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. Permission, as sought, is granted.
Accordingly, this writ petition and the accompanying application is dismissed as withdrawn.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
NOVEMBER 16, 2018/ rd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to future employment or past claims.
DHIRAJ KUMAR YADAV
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
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
