Disposed¶18

Pramod Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/3356/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pramod Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.; W.P.(C) 3356/2025; Delhi High Court; Vikas Mahajan, J.; 19.03.2025; University of Delhi; restoration of original result; final degree certificate; UPSC; candidature for final appointment in Indian Army; writ petition treated as representation; speaking order within one week; mandamus; petition disposed of; pending application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Substantive reliefs not granted; the writ petition was treated as a representation to the respondent university, to be disposed of within one week by a speaking order communicated to the petitioner, with liberty reserved to approach the Court thereafter. ¶18

Pramod Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the University of Delhi (Respondent No. 2) should restore the petitioner's original result and issue his final degree certificate. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation by the respondent university (University of Delhi) and disposed of within one week by a speaking order, to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶16

Key takeaways

The petitioner was left at liberty to approach the Court after the speaking order is passed by the respondent university, if so advised.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Vikas Mahajan, J.), order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.(C) 3356/2025 & CM APPL. 15854/2025 — Pramod Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner had sought mandamus directing the University of Delhi to restore his original result and issue his final degree certificate, and/or directing UPSC and the Union of India to consider his candidature for final appointment in the Indian Army on the basis of his original, unaltered result. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted he would be satisfied if the petition were treated as a representation to the respondent university and disposed of in a time-bound manner; counsel for the university raised no objection. The Court directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation by the respondent university and disposed of within one week by a speaking order, communicated to the petitioner forthwith, leaving the petitioner at liberty to approach the Court after the speaking order if so advised. The petition and the pending application were disposed of accordingly; no substantive issue was adjudicated.

¶1

$~70

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3356/2025 & CM APPL. 15854/2025

¶4

PRAMOD KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, SPC with Mr. Vishal Kumar Yadav, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Mr. Devender Singh and Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R-2/University. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Advs. for R- 3/UPSC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 19.03.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

¶10

“a) issue writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2, (University of Delhi) to restore the petitioner’s original result and issue his final degree certificate forthwith; AND/OR

¶11

b) issue writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3, UPSC, and respondent no.1, Union of India, to consider the petitioner’s candidature for final appointment in the Indian Army on the basis of his original, unaltered result.”

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 21:52:16

¶14

Mr. Puneet Mittal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he will be satisfied in case a direction is given to the respondent university to treat the present writ petition as a representation and dispose of the same in a time-bound manner.

¶15

Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent university submits that he has no objection in case such a direction is passed.

¶16

Accordingly, it is directed that the present writ petition be treated as a representation by the respondent university and the same may be disposed of within a period of one week from today by a speaking order and the order be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶17

Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the court after the speaking order is passed by the respondent university, if so advised.

¶18

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the pending application also stands disposed of.

¶19

Order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶20

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶21

MARCH 19, 2025 aj

¶22

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 21:52:16

Pramod Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Rajnikant Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Rajan Nagpal Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Banwari Aromas Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt Twinkle Gupta Vs the L T Governor of Delhi and Ors.

Srodeep Infra Developers Limited Vs Income Tax Officer and Ors.

Charu Chains and Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Gurpreet Singh @Gopi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shama Bhatia Vs D.D.A.

Balaji Trading Vs Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

Rinki Soni Vs State of NCT of Delhi through SHO

Ashok@Rakesh Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Sevti Devi Memorial Vidya Mandir Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Krishn Chand Patel Vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences

Khemo Devi Public School through Its Administrator Vs Central Board of Secondary Education