Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ
CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD RAJAK – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintainability of appeal by non-party. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. impact of interim order on admissions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against the impugned judgment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. questioning the constitutionality of om. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. respondents’ support and prior judgments. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. merits of the appeal and previously settled issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. legal principles surrounding interim orders. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. mhrd's authority and limitations in granting equivalence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. discrimination and rights of students after 31.05.2013. (Para 37) |
2. At the outset, it is important to note that the Appellant herein was not a party to the aforesaid Writ Petition(s). However, he has preferred the present Appeal on the ground that the said judgment has adversely affected him.
3. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that an appeal filed by a person who was not a party to the Writ Petition may not be maintainable. Nevertheless, without prejudice to this preliminary observation, the Court deems it appropriate to examine the Appeal on merits.
4. The Appellant primarily assails the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
