Jajati Panda vs. Union Of India
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Mention Memo
Before:
Hon'ble A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice
Stage:
FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Dismissed
Listed On:
15 Mar 2021
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
122798/2020,122799/2020,129855/2020,129857/2020,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.35 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1349/2020
JAJATI PANDA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 122799/2020 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT IA No. 122798/2020 - EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM RELIEF
IA No. 129857/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 129855/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 270/2021 (X) IA No. 29759/2021 - EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM RELIEF IA No. 29761/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)
Date : 15-03-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
| For Parties | Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, Adv.<br>Ms. Rohini M. Amin, Adv.<br>Ms. Maria Nedumpara, Adv.<br>Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR |
|---|---|
| Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv.<br>Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR<br>Mr. Arudhra Rao, Adv. | |
| Mr. R. S. Suri, ASG<br>Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Adv.<br>Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.<br>Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.<br>Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR | |
| Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR<br>Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.<br>Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.<br>Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv.<br>Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv.<br>Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna, Adv. |
Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Adv. Ms. Kajal Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the reply affidavit filed by respondent no.5.
In light of the conscious holistic decision taken by the expert body, it is not possible for us to give a second look to that decision. The authority in its affidavit has clearly stated that there would be cascading effect if any further concession is to be given.
Being a policy matter, and the decision being a conscious decision to avoid any discrimination likely to be caused to the aspirants in future examination, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, all pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER
2