This order dismisses three writ petitions filed by petitioners against AICTE as withdrawn with liberty to file appeals before the District Judge, following the directions in a related Division Bench judgment.
Dismissal of writ petitions with liberty to appeal to the District Judge.
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.
$~12 to 14
YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) AND ORS. .....Respondents
versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) AND ORS. .....Respondents
versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) AND ORS. .....Respondents
Appearance:
Mr. Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee and Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Advocates for petitioners.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Amitoj Chadha and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocates for DTTE.
Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocate for DU in Item No.13.
W.P.(C) 12016/2018 and connected matters Page 1 of 3
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 01/07/2025 at 17:57:49
Mr. Anil Soni, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Devvrat Yadav and Mr. Kush Garg, Advocates for AICTE.
Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra Advocate for R-3 and 4.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 15.05.2025
“ 14. However, keeping in mind the fact that these writ petitions were in fact pending before the learned Single Judge for a considerable period of time, we dispense with the requirement of the appellants having to file fresh appeals before learned District Judge. They would be entitled to present these writ petitions along with record of this Court before the concerned District judge who would treat them as appeals and decide them accordingly.
15. We may note that learned Counsel for the respondents has fairly consented to this.
16. We request the learned District Judge to decide the writ petitions filed before this Court, treating them as petitions under Section 32(d) of the DSG Act as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date when the matters are presented before the learned District Judge.
17. Needless to say, should the appellants remain aggrieved by the
W.P.(C) 12016/2018 and connected matters Page 2 of 3
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 01/07/2025 at 17:57:49
decision of the District Judge, their rights to challenge the decision as available in law would stand reserved.
xxx xxx xxx
20. For this purpose, the record of the writ petitions in electronic form would be provided to learned Counsel for both sides and appellants would be at liberty to present the said writ petitions before the concerned District Judge who would deal with them appropriately. ”
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 15, 2025 SS/SD/
W.P.(C) 12016/2018 and connected matters Page 3 of 3
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 01/07/2025 at 17:57:49
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yogesh Kumar Sharma
Satyapal Singh
Trupti Milan Purohit
All India Council for Technical Education
Prateek Jalan
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
