You may also like...
-
-
We find that the learned Single Judge has strangely proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on a gross misconception as to the very issue before him. He has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the premise that the appellant / writ petitioner is a third party and that, in a dispute between an employee and employer, a third party would have no role. The following passage is relevant: “As such the petitioner herein, who is not an employee and is a third party, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition.” We don’t think that the issue arises for consideration even remotely in the Writ Petition filed to enquire whether the 3rd respondent who has been awarded Ph.D degree is even eligible to be admitted to the Ph.D. programme. 8. Taking into account the gravity of the issue, which prima facie involves remissness at the highest level in the filed of education, we are inclined to call for a report from the authorities concerned. Accordingly, as an interim measure, we direct the respondent University to conduct an enquiry on the representation submitted by the appellant, after issuing due notice to both the parties, viz., the appellant and the third respondent, and submit its report within a period of four weeks. 9. Post the matter after four weeks. Notice to the third respondent through court as well as privately by then. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 22.06.2023 Mka R.MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Mka WA.No.1273 of 2023 22.06.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published July 4, 2023
-
Lordship c v Karthikeyan mba lecture full video www.Sekarreporter.com
by Sekar Reporter · Published May 19, 2020