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

DELHI HIGH COURT
VALMIKI J.MEHTA
Anju Sharma – Appellant
Versus
GNCTD of Delhi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)--Counsel for the petitioner was not present on 7.2.2017 and therefore, at the request made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be remain on Board. Today, again counsel does not appear for the petitioner and a pass-over is sought. I have still waited for the counsel for the petitioner and in the meanwhile have gone through the file with the assistance of the counsels for the respondents, but, counsel for the petitioner still does not appear. I am therefore after hearing the counsels for respondents and perusing the record proceeding to dispose of the writ petition.

2. Petitioner, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the actions of the respondent no.3/school in appointing the respondent no.4/Ms. Manisha Luthra as an Assistant Teacher with the respondent no.3/school/Lions Vidya Mandir Secondary School, Kushak Lane, Kashmir House, New Delhi.

3. Petitioner pleads that respondent no.4 could not have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.3/school, in terms of the Minutes of the Selection Committee which held interview to the post on 19.3.2009, with respect

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