SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Del) 842

VALMIKI J.MEHTA
KANIKA SANWAL – Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law in the University of Delhi on the ground that criteria for selection which is laid down wrongly excludes Advocates having experience of practice, and instead only giving weightage to teaching experience of a candidate, and it is argued that resultantly there is arbitrariness, discrimination of excluding Advocates experience and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Putting it in other words, it is argued that whereas experience of teaching is given weightage, the experience as an Advocate is not being given weightage, and therefore, because of the latter aspect the selection process is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The qualifications required for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law read as under:-

“ASSISTANT PROFESSOR:

For Faculties of Applied Social Sciences & Humanities; Arts, Commerce a












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top