In a notable decision by the Delhi High Court, a writ petition was disposed of with consensus among the parties, including the petitioner and respondent. Prof. Rajeev Kumar’s application in this matter has been dismissed following a unanimous decision. The case brings to light the importance of legal consensus and adherence to court rulings. Stay tuned for more insights into this significant legal development.
Facts
- The FAC of the judgement highlighted the consensus among the surviving parties in the writ petition.
- The petition was disposed of with this consensus, which the applicant now seeks to recall.
- The decision was passed unanimously by the surviving parties involved.
Arguments
- The applicant acknowledged that the outcome of the prayer in the writ petition would not affect him
- The applicant cannot now request to continue as the petitioners’ supervisor after the writ petition has been disposed of
- The applicant’s entitlement to continue as the petitioners’ supervisor did not affect him, as stated in para 3 of the application
- Prof. Rajeev Kumar argues that he should be allowed to continue as the petitioners’ supervisor instead of Prof. D.K. Lobiyal
Analysis
- Prof. Rajeev Kumar’s grievance of not being reflected as Supervisor for the petitioners’ theses is baseless as he continues to be reflected as Supervisor.
- Prof. Rajeev Kumar clarified that he is not seeking to continue as the Supervisor for the petitioners.
- The petitioner has no standing to raise concerns when there is no personal detriment involved.
- The thesis of both petitioners shows Prof. Rajeev Kumar as Supervisor, ensuring his recognition.
- The decision to appoint Prof. D.K. Lobiyal as Supervisor was based on JNU regulations.
- The possibility of the petitioners’ thesis being released under another Supervisor was refuted by the Court.
- Agreement between the petitioners and JNU allowed Prof. D.K. Lobiyal to supervise the remaining thesis work.
- The applicant’s apprehensions appear unfounded and based on unfounded beliefs.
- The draft thesis of Petitioner 1 clearly lists Prof. Rajeev Kumar as the Supervisor.
- There is no justification for the applicant’s concerns or for reviving the proceedings based on imagined grievances.
- The Court has not specified who should be the supervisor on the theses submitted by the petitioners.
- Prof. Rajeev Kumar has no objection to Prof. D.K. Lobiyal continuing as the Supervisor of the petitioners.
- The application filed by Prof. Rajeev Kumar is considered misconceived.
Decision
- The application is thoroughly misconceived
- The application is dismissed
Case Title: AKHILESH RAWAT & ANR. Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS. (2024:DHC:4001)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-4152/2022
