Maria Jamal vs.indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women Through: Its Registrar and Ors.

Maria Jamal vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women Through: Its Registrar and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 31, 2018

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1215478

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1215478
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: May 31, 2018
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Maria Jamal

Respondent

Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women Through: Its Registrar and Ors.

Excerpt

.....petitioner had applied for the post of associate professor in electronics and communication engineering.2. learned counsel for petitioner submits that the results in relation to the advertisement of december, 2013 were declared in august, 2014. aggrieved by her non-selection, petitioner had also challenged the selection of fifth and sixth respondent in w.p. (c) 2657/2014 which stood disposed of vide order of 30th november, 2016 (annexure p-4), while granting liberty to petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with adequate pleadings. in this petition, the constitution of screening committee as well as selection committee is under challenge on factual aspects. w.p.(c) 6206/2018 page 1 of 2 3. learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite resort to rti, the requisite information could not be obtained by petitioner.4. upon hearing, i find that there is no clarity on facts. in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to file a concise representation to question her non-selection and the selection of respondent no.5 and 6. if such representation is received by respondent-university within two weeks, then it be effectively considered by giving a speaking response within six weeks and the fate of the representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter.5. with aforesaid direction, this petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of. copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. (sunil gaur) judge may31 2018 p w.p.(c) 6206/2018 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: May 31, 2018 + W.P.(C) 6206/2018 & CMs. 23934-35/2018 1. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha, Advocate versus MARIA JAMAL INDIRA GANDHI DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD and Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocate for R-1,3 &4 .....Respondents ORDER

(ORAL) In pursuance of advertisement for teaching post issued in December, 2013 by respondent-University, petitioner had applied for the post of Associate Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the results in relation to the Advertisement of December, 2013 were declared in August, 2014. Aggrieved by her non-selection, petitioner had also challenged the selection of fifth and sixth respondent in W.P. (C) 2657/2014 which stood disposed of vide order of 30th November, 2016 (Annexure P-4), while granting liberty to petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with adequate pleadings. In this petition, the constitution of Screening Committee as well as Selection Committee is under challenge on factual aspects. W.P.(C) 6206/2018 Page 1 of 2 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite resort to RTI, the requisite information could not be obtained by petitioner.

4. Upon hearing, I find that there is no clarity on facts. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to file a concise Representation to question her non-selection and the selection of respondent No.5 and 6. If such Representation is received by respondent-University within two weeks, then it be effectively considered by giving a speaking response within six weeks and the fate of the Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter.

5. With aforesaid direction, this petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY31 2018 p W.P.(C) 6206/2018 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Maria Jamal vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for W... Same Subject Right to Information