Petitioners appeared stating that appointment letters had been issued during pendency. The court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed.
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.
$~24
MAYANK DUTT AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Mishra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, SPC.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have already been issued appointment letters during the pendency of the present petition, he has instructions not to press the present petition any further. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as not pressed.
REKHA PALLI, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
AUGUST 16, 2024 /ss
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2024 at 12:23:14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners' appointment has been regularized such that the writ petition is no longer pressed?
MAYANK DUTT AND ORS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REKHA PALLI
SHALINDER KAUR
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
