CWP-6567-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 250 DR. JAIPAL MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Sajjan Singh Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed quashing the order dated respondent has been re respondent/University 2. Learned counsel for been appointed to rejoin the post one year for which the re 3. In view stands disposed of. 02.04.2025 Ad 2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia the order dated 03.03.2023, Annexure P has been re-employed as Director Sports in the respondent/University. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent contends that he has appointed as Vice Chancellor in a private University and does not inten to rejoin the post of Director Sports in the University. Besides, the period of year for which the re-employment was given to him In view thereof, nothing survives for adjudication and disposed of. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6567-2023 Decided On: 02.04.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana. inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari 03.03.2023, Annexure P-17, whereby the fourth employed as Director Sports in the the fourth respondent contends that he has rivate University and does not intend of Director Sports in the University. Besides, the period of employment was given to him, is already over. thereof, nothing survives for adjudication and the matter TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No certiorari , whereby the fourth employed as Director Sports in the the fourth respondent contends that he has d of Director Sports in the University. Besides, the period of matter Aman Dua 2025.04.04 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document