Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/14152/2025 of ARADHNA GUPTA Vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. on 4 May 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13390/2025 CM APPL. 29632/2026 JITENDER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Mr. Shagun Agarwal and Petitioner in person versus SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH COLLEGE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik
$~24 & 25
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) 13390/2025 CM APPL. 29632/2026
JITENDER
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Mr.
Shagun Agarwal and Petitioner in
person
versus
SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH COLLEGE & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms.
Tripta Sharma, Advs.
+
W.P.(C) 14152/2025
ARADHNA GUPTA
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms.
Tripta Sharma, Advs.
Mr. Ashutosh Singh along with Mr.
GK Pathak, Advs. for Respondent
No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 04.05.2026
1. These petitions have been filed primarily on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are the same i.e., the Governing Body, and it is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Today, we have been informed by Mr. Mohinder Rupal, learned counsel for the respondent/ University of Delhi that, as per the counter affidavit filed by the University of Delhi, the relevant rules have been amended whereby the Appeal in respect of Group C and B employees (non- teaching staff) shall lie before the Dean of the Colleges, whereas, the Vice Chancellor shall be the appellate authority for the Group A employees.
3. On this Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners herein shall avail the remedy before the concerned Appellate Authority in terms of the amended rules.
4. Mr. Bisaria and Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the amended rules, these petitions be treated as appeal against the order of the penalty imposed on petitioners to the respective Appellate Authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders.
5. If that be so, we direct the respondents to consider these petitions as an appeal to the respective Appellate Authorities and decide the same, in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. The appellate authority shall pass a detailed and a reasoned order by considering all the grounds which have been taken by the petitioners in these petitions. It goes without saying if the petitioners have any grievance on the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, they are at liberty to seek such remedy as available in law.
7. The petitions are disposed of.
8. The pending application(s) is also disposed of as having become infructuous.
9. Order dasti. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MAY 4, 2026 rt