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

2025 Supreme(Del) 840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
INDER JIT DUA – Respondent


Table of Content
1. chronology of appointments and upgrades. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. aicte's guidelines on career advancement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. respondent's entitlement under aicte guidelines. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. legal arguments against qualification relaxation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. court's interpretation of aicte's qualification requirements. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. comparison of past rulings and their implications. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
8. finality and dismissal of the petition. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

W.P. (C) 2339/2025, W.P. (C) 2340/2025 & W.P. (C) 2347/2025

1. These writ petitions emanate from a judgment dated 19 February 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [“the Tribunal” hereinafter] in three original applications. The Tribunal has treated OA 3058/2016, filed by Satish Bihari Mathur, the respondent in WP (C) 2340/2025, as the lead case. We also, therefore, would be referring to the facts apropos Satish Bihari Mathur.

2. The reference to the “respondent” would, therefore, be a reference to Satish Bihari Mathur.

3. The respondent was appointed as Drawing Instructor with the Directorate

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