Full Text
Translation output
V
-t;
-$~1 ' - ' • N • . •" •
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W>;(C) 6305/2017 - ^ GOVTOF NCT OFDELHlAND ORS Petitioners
- ' • Through^- Mr. Sanjay Ghose^ASQ, with
^ • .Mr. Rhishabhijetley;:Advocate . , '
-t;
-$~1 ' - ' • N • . •" •
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W>;(C) 6305/2017 - ^ GOVTOF NCT OFDELHlAND ORS Petitioners
- ' • Through^- Mr. Sanjay Ghose^ASQ, with
^ • .Mr. Rhishabhijetley;:Advocate . , '
VERSUS
NC GOEL / • ..... Respondent
; . Through: Mr; SoufabhAhuja, Advocate
; . Through: Mr; SoufabhAhuja, Advocate
CORAM: : V ^ ^ "
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE yiPiN SANGHI HbN'BLE MS/JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
• ORDER ^
V 04.08.2017 ^
• ORDER ^
V 04.08.2017 ^
CAV 671/2017 U::;--:
Since the counsel for the.Caveatbrappears, caveat stands discharged./:
Since the counsel for the.Caveatbrappears, caveat stands discharged./:
C.M. APPL. 26121/2017 (Exemptioa)
. , Exemption allowed^ subject to alljust,exceptions. , ;
.. Application stands disposed of.. , / ;
W:P. (C) No!6305/2017 & C.M. APPL. 26120/2017
, .Mi Sanjay Ghose, counsel for the petitioners submits that inthe counteir
: reply filed before the Central AdininistatiVe Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('the Tribunal') the correct factual position,was not.completely disclosed, inasmuch as, the Notification dated 04:01.2016. issued byAll India Council for •
Technical.Educatioh ('AICTE'), though referred to in,para ,'E' ofthe reply ot grounds,' was actually not placed before-the Tribunal which would have,a
^ materialbearing on the decision. Infact, it was stated in the.counter,reply that • the AICTE-Guidelines 2012 along with ,2016 Clarifications are under submission for Cabinet approval of Government of NCT of Delhi and that as
' and when the, AlCTE Guidelines, 2012 aiid. Clarification 2016 are approved, , the case of the resjponden^ applicant would be considered in the light of the •
< 2017:DHC:8257-DB c AlCTEnorms. Counsel forthe petitioners further submit^ that, in fact, thesaid
Clarification had already been received which was contained inthe Notification dated 04.01.2016. He has, particularly, referred to Clause 10 of the said
Notification which is on the aspect of "clarity required in faculty norms notified vide AICTE Regulations, 2010 (Diploma) for Humanities & Sciences program".
In view of the aforesaid Mr. Ghose, counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits thatthepetitioners may bepermitted to withdraw this writ ; petition with liberty to file a review before the Tribunal.
Counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, raises a grievance that onaccount ofan inaccurate counter reply filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the respondent, who has already retired, is being made to suffer. Even otherwise, he disputes thereliance placed bythepetitioners onthe , clarification dated 04.01.2016.
In view of the aforesaid, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move a review before the Tribunal subject to the , condition that the petitioners shall compensate the respondent with costs of
Rs.20^000/-, before the review is filed.
In ckse the review is moved within the next two weeks, the same shall not be dismissed on account of limitation.
A copy oftheorder begiven dastiunder thesignatures ofCourt Master.
AUGUST 04,2017/nn VIPIN SANGHI, J rekhKalli, J
2017:DHC:8257-DB
. , Exemption allowed^ subject to alljust,exceptions. , ;
.. Application stands disposed of.. , / ;
W:P. (C) No!6305/2017 & C.M. APPL. 26120/2017
, .Mi Sanjay Ghose, counsel for the petitioners submits that inthe counteir
: reply filed before the Central AdininistatiVe Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('the Tribunal') the correct factual position,was not.completely disclosed, inasmuch as, the Notification dated 04:01.2016. issued byAll India Council for •
Technical.Educatioh ('AICTE'), though referred to in,para ,'E' ofthe reply ot grounds,' was actually not placed before-the Tribunal which would have,a
^ materialbearing on the decision. Infact, it was stated in the.counter,reply that • the AICTE-Guidelines 2012 along with ,2016 Clarifications are under submission for Cabinet approval of Government of NCT of Delhi and that as
' and when the, AlCTE Guidelines, 2012 aiid. Clarification 2016 are approved, , the case of the resjponden^ applicant would be considered in the light of the •
< 2017:DHC:8257-DB c AlCTEnorms. Counsel forthe petitioners further submit^ that, in fact, thesaid
Clarification had already been received which was contained inthe Notification dated 04.01.2016. He has, particularly, referred to Clause 10 of the said
Notification which is on the aspect of "clarity required in faculty norms notified vide AICTE Regulations, 2010 (Diploma) for Humanities & Sciences program".
In view of the aforesaid Mr. Ghose, counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits thatthepetitioners may bepermitted to withdraw this writ ; petition with liberty to file a review before the Tribunal.
Counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, raises a grievance that onaccount ofan inaccurate counter reply filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the respondent, who has already retired, is being made to suffer. Even otherwise, he disputes thereliance placed bythepetitioners onthe , clarification dated 04.01.2016.
In view of the aforesaid, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move a review before the Tribunal subject to the , condition that the petitioners shall compensate the respondent with costs of
Rs.20^000/-, before the review is filed.
In ckse the review is moved within the next two weeks, the same shall not be dismissed on account of limitation.
A copy oftheorder begiven dastiunder thesignatures ofCourt Master.
AUGUST 04,2017/nn VIPIN SANGHI, J rekhKalli, J
2017:DHC:8257-DB
JUDGMENT