“Delhi High Court Vacates Interim Order, Citing ‘Prudence’ in Legal Challenge over DARC Fellowship Disengagement”

110
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Fees Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

In a recent judgment delivered on October 3, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, made a significant decision regarding the disengagement of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre (DARC) Fellowship Programme. The court vacated an interim order that had previously restrained the discontinuation of services and directed the payment of stipends to the affected parties.

The judgment, which examined the legal Intricacies surrounding the disengagement, referenced the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023. This ordinance played a pivotal role in the proceedings, as it altered the distribution of powers and authority within the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

In its observations, the court emphasized the need for caution when granting interim orders, particularly those that effectively stay actions such as disengagements. The court referred to the prudence required in such situations.

According to the judgment, “Propriety demands that this Court ought not to have passed any interim order which had the effect of staying the Order dated 05.07.2023 and other consequential orders.”

This ruling signifies a critical development in the ongoing legal battle over the engagement of Fellows and Associate Fellows in the DARC and the subsequent disengagement. It underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding the authority and decision-making processes in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

The legal challenge had also referred to various legal provisions, including Article 123 of the Constitution of India, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, and government notifications related to reservations and services. The judgment highlights the intricate legal issues at the heart of the matter.

The decision ultimately provides clarity on the status of the interim order and directs parties involved to approach the Apex Court for further clarification. This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving similar legal complexities within the region.

Date of Decision: 03 OCTOBER 2023

 SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS.  vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI &

Download Judgment

Share: