Rambir Mann v. University of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 13 Sep 2013 · 2013:DHC:7130
Valmiki J. Mehta
W.P.(C) 3028/2013 & Conn. Matters
2013:DHC:7130
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging cancellation of services as infructuous after reinstatement of petitioners as Multi Tasking Staff from original appointment dates, allowing separate petitions if legal rights are affected.

Full Text
Translation output
$-4, 6 to 8, 10 to 13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(c) 3028t20r3
RAMBIR MANN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Bandhu with Mr. Varun Kumar &
Mr. Rajesh Passey, Advs.
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ritika Nagpal with Ml : til,T,iT'?L,f:f."1"1 i-, Mr. Amitesh Kumar. Adv. for R-4. r w.P.(c) 3229t20r3
MAHESH VOHRA ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
LTNIVERSTT#Ifi:t1L:
R[ti. Nagpar with ""' Respondents Mr. Amit Bansal, Advs. for R-1.
, Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-4.
.:- + w.P.(c) 3292t2013 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Mr. Amit Bansal. Advs. for R-1.
W.P.(C) 302812013 & Conn. Matters Page I of 4
2013:DHC:7130 i Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv. for R-2. w.P.(c) 334st20r3
RAM NIWAS ..... Petitioner VETSUS UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents w.P.(c) 3r64t20r3
SURENDER KUMAR ... Petitioner
VERSUS
Mr. Amitesh Kumar" Adv. for R-4. w.P.(c) 316512013
AMIT JAMWAL ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 3028/2013 & Conn. Matters Page2 of 4
I w.P.(c) 3166/2013 GOPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
VETSUS
, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents w.P.(c) 3198/2013
RAJIV KUMARNARVARIYA ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
13.09.2013
ORDER

1. Counsel appearing for UGC has placed on record a leffer dated 12.6.2013 as per which cancellation of the services of the petitioners have been recalled and they have been treated as employed from their actual date of appointments as regular staff however, in the category of Multi Tasking W.P.(C) 3028/2013 & Conn. Matters J- L Staff. Counsel also states that serial no.7 is wrongly mentioned as 'suresh Kumar' whereas it should be 'surender Kumar'.

2. In view of the above, the reliefs which are prayed in these petitions are satisfied, and therefore, counsels for the petitioners do not press these writ petitions.

3. It is, however, clarified that if the petitioners are in any manner aggrieved by putting them as Multi Tasking Staff, and if they lose any legal right for that reason, the petitioners can showing how their legal rights are affected, file independent petitions with respect to such legal rights.

4. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as infructuous, subject however to the aforesaid observations. \TM VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER I[3],2OT[3] ak W.P.(C) 302812013 & Conn. Matters Page 4 of[4] 4*