Full Text
BALJINDER KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.I( Singh, Advocate.
Kffi;iij;.i?Stl.Advocate for Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for respondent No.4. w.P.(c) 6236/2013
HARDEEP KAURKONDAL ..... Petitioner Ihrough: Mr. B.K. Singh, Advocate.
Vo 30.09.201.3 W.P.(C) Nos.6229/2013 & 6236/2013 page I of 3
2013:DHC:7246 :' '1 1. the common
ORDER
3. Counsel for the respondent No.l/school with its usual fairness stares that limited to only those petitioners who were petitioners in the cases decided as per judgment of this court dated t6'4'2013' and petitioners are two of such persons, respondent No.l-school has no objection to the committee constituted by the Division Bench's order dated 23'8'2013 to T' even accordingly conduct the enquiry proceedings so far as the present petitioners are concerned, however, the proceedings must be from the same stage from which it is pending before the present enquiry offic.er' To this counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection' It is also agreed W.P.(C) Nos.6229/2013 & 6236/2013..[1] between the parties that enquiry committee of three prominent members of the Sikh Community will conclude the enquiry proceedings so far as the petitioners are concerned within a period of three months from today' This direction is given because counsel for the parties state that none of them will take unnecessary adjournments before the enquiry committee' It is also agreed on behalf of petitioners that though all the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR, 1973) will apply, however, petitioners will not question constitution of the committee as being violative of DSEAR,IgT[3] or contend any lack of jurisdiction in the same to decide the issue before it.
4. writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs'
5. Dasti to counsel for the Parties. V^r.!r"*.'..t|+t 4: VALMIKI J. MEHTA' J SEPTEMBER 30,2013 Ne W.P.(C) Nos.6229/2013 & 6236/2013 page 3 of[3] r. \ t