Kiranjot Singh v. Directorate Of Education & ANR

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5337/2017 & CM. Nos. 22590/2017 KIRANJOT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Avantika Manohar, Mr. Errabelli Siddharth Rao and Mr. Dhanesh Pahuja, Advs.

versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil) with Ms. Devyani Sehgal and Mr. Sachin Saini, Advs. with Mr. M.I.

Khan (DO) (DOE) for R1.

Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Vasudha Bajaj, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 29.08.2017 W.P.(C) 5337/2017 & CM. Nos. 22590/2017, 29190/2017 and 29192/2016 1.

The petitioner has filed CM No. 29190/2017 for adding additional grounds and prayer in the writ petition. In substance, the application is for amendment of the writ petition. However, CM. No. 29192/2016 is for supply of copy of the ACRs of the petitioner. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in view of the order dated July 13, 2017, this application has become infructuous. Mr. Puneet Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has handed over copies of the ACRs of the last five years to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The application being CM No. 29192/2017 is disposed of as

infructuous.

3.

Mr. Puneet Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 states that prayers in the writ petition have been satisfied inasmuch as the application of the petitioner for re-employment has been rejected and a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated May 17, 2017 rejecting the application have been annexed along with the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, which is a sufficient communication to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the petitioner intended to challenge the Minutes and it is for that reason, an application seeking amendment was filed.

4.

As the prayers in the writ petition have been satisfied, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the minutes of the meeting dated May 17, 2017.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if this petition is withdrawn, the petitioner shall be denied the benefit of the interim order dated June 19, 2017. Noting the aforesaid submission and protecting the interest of the petitioner to the extent of interim order, I extend the operation of order dated June 19, 2017 for seventeen days from today within which time the petitioner shall file the petition and also get the same listed in the Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall also serve an advance copy of the petition to be filed on the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. The petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J AUGUST 29, 2017/jg