Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shri Narendra Kumar vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) and Anr.

Shri Narendra Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) and Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 12, 2018
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1212713

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shri Narendra Kumar

Respondent

The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) and Anr.

Excerpt

in the high court of delhi at new delhi * date of order: february 12, 2018 + w.p.(c) 1264/2018 & c.m. 5274-75/2018 1. shri narendra kumar ........ petitioner through: mr. parimal kumar, advocate versus the state (govt. of nct delhi) and anr. through: mr. harsh kaushik, advocate for respondent no.2 ........ respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur order (oral)... petitioner claims to be working as junior operator with second respondent since the year 2007 and by way of representations/reminders, petitioner had sought regularization of his service upon completion of eight years’ of contractual service but to no avail.2. learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no response to petitioner’s legal notice of 19th july, 2017 (annexure p-7) sent to second respondent to seek regularization of his service. learned counsel for petitioner alleges discrimination and points out that similarly placed persons, as petitioner, have been already regularized by respondent no.2- university.3. upon hearing, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to second respondent to consider petitioner’s legal notice w.p.(c) 1264/2018 page 1 of 2 of 19th july, 2017 (annexure p-7) as a representation and to pass a speaking order thereon within a period of six weeks, while taking note of agenda item no.53.27 of 53rd board of management meeting held on 15th march, 2013. the fate of petitioner’s legal notice of 19th july, 2017 (annexure p-7)/ representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.4. with aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of. february12 2018 r (sunil gaur) judge w.p.(c) 1264/2018 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Date of Order: February 12, 2018 + W.P.(C) 1264/2018 & C.M. 5274-75/2018 1. SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Parimal Kumar, Advocate Versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) AND ANR. Through: Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2 ........ RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner

claims to be working as Junior Operator with second respondent since the year 2007 and by way of Representations/reminders, petitioner had sought regularization of his service upon completion of eight years’ of contractual service but to no avail.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no response to petitioner’s Legal Notice of 19th July, 2017 (Annexure P-7) sent to second respondent to seek regularization of his service. Learned counsel for petitioner alleges discrimination and points out that similarly placed persons, as petitioner, have been already regularized by respondent No.2- University.

3. Upon hearing, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to second respondent to consider petitioner’s Legal Notice W.P.(C) 1264/2018 Page 1 of 2 of 19th July, 2017 (Annexure P-7) as a Representation and to pass a speaking order thereon within a period of six weeks, while taking note of Agenda Item No.53.27 of 53rd Board of Management Meeting held on 15th March, 2013. The fate of petitioner’s Legal Notice of 19th July, 2017 (Annexure P-7)/ Representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.

4. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of. FEBRUARY12 2018 r (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE W.P.(C) 1264/2018 Page 2 of 2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial