Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

A.K.D Dwivedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 August, 2017

Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Amit Rawal

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CWP No. 18851 of 2013 (O&M)
                                                 Decided on : 22.08.2017

A.K.D. Dwivedi
                                                                 . . . Petitioner
                                        Versus
Union of India and others
                                                              . . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

PRESENT: Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
         Ms. Savi, Advocate,
         for the petitioner.

            Mr. Puneet Gupta, Sr. Panel Counsel
            for respondent No.1 - UOI.

            Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate
            for respondent No.4.
                                 ****

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Executive Director, Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses Society (DOEACC) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.

2. The Court was informed that respondent No.4 was appointed as Executive Director on 06th August, 2012. His appointment was for a period of five years, which has expired on 05th August, 2017 and accordingly, respondent No.4 has been relieved. In support thereof, a photocopy of the communication dated 18.08.2017, has been produced in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. In such circumstances, it was prayed that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. However, a prayer was made that the issue with regard 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2017 17:14:10 ::: CWP No. 18851 of 2013 (O&M) -2- to the legality and validity qua the selection and appointment of respondent No.4, may be kept open.

2. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous.

3. Needless to say that no opinion has been expressed by this Court on the issue of legality and validity of selection and appointment of respondent No.4 and on the order of the Tribunal.



                                                    (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
                                                           JUDGE

                                                       (AMIT RAWAL)
August 22, 2017                                           JUDGE
J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned:                 Yes/No
Whether Reportable:                        Yes/No




                                  2 of 2
               ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2017 17:14:12 :::