CWP-12579 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (207) Fatima Maqsood Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the 22.11.2025 petitioner was accepted on 2. Court towards to the Director against the faculty member complaint, it is mentioned that reprimanded ineffective, The relevant part of the complaint is 2579-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Fatima Maqsood Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the respondent. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the 22.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the resignation submitted by petitioner was accepted on same day of its submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner towards the email/complaint dated 21.11.2025 to the Director, IIT Ropar, wherein, she has against the faculty members, for their alleged complaint, it is mentioned that the Director ed, and scolded the faculty members, rather the said faculty members The relevant part of the complaint is extracted 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12579-2026 Date of Decision : 26.05.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondent KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the resignation dated the resignation submitted by the day of its submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this 21.11.2025, made by the petitioner has requested to take strict action alleged misconduct. In the said Director, IIT Ropar, has already ed the faculty members, but same has proven to be the said faculty members are repeating the same behaviour. extracted hereinafter:- , cast under Article 226/227 of resignation dated the attention of this made by the petitioner, requested to take strict action said has already to be the same behaviour. MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 3. 22.11.2025, resignation, to continue action has caused undue harassment to both The relevant extract of the application 4. of the petitioner Supervisor, competent authority accept exercise was given effect to 2579-2026 “I have experienced multiple incidents of harassment from the faculty members of the situation escalated severely when they went so far as to sent me to PGI. I request that strict action be taken against the following faculty members involved in this matter: Dr. Mandal, Dr. Tharamani, Dr. Arun, Mr. De Dr. Naidu, Dr. Charanjit and Dr. Reena. Additionally, I request an inquiry against my former Doctoral Committee (DC) members for conspiring against me, for which they have already been reprimanded by the Director. However, a mere scolding has proven ineffective, as they have repeated the same behaviour.” Since no action was taken on such complaint , under the compelling circumstances wherein, she has specifically mentioned that she is resigning due to continued misbehaviour and misconduct action has caused undue harassment to both The relevant extract of the application/resignation “I am officially resigning from my position due to the continued misbehavior and misconduct. Their actions have caused undue harassment to both me and my 67 year old father with no relief. Under these circumstances, I find it impossible to continue, and therefore I am compelled to resign.” Surprisingly, without making any efforts to of the petitioner, the request of her resignation and endorsed by the Head of the Dep authority accepted the resignation exercise was given effect to with a lightning speed on the very 2 “I have experienced multiple incidents of harassment from the faculty members of the Chemistry Department. The situation escalated severely when they went so far as to I request that strict action be taken against the following faculty members involved in this matter: Dr. Mandal, Dr. Tharamani, Dr. Arun, Mr. Deepak, Ms. Gargi, Dr. Naidu, Dr. Charanjit and Dr. Reena. Additionally, I request an inquiry against my former Doctoral Committee (DC) members for conspiring against me, for which they have already been reprimanded by the , a mere scolding has proven ineffective, as they have repeated the same behaviour.” was taken on such complaint, therefore, under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner submitted her specifically mentioned that she is resigning due misbehaviour and misconduct of faculty members, and this action has caused undue harassment to both, i.e. the petitioner and her fath /resignation is extracted hereinafter :- “I am officially resigning from my position due to the continued misbehavior and misconduct. Their actions have caused undue harassment to both me and my 67 year old father with no relief. Under these circumstances, I find it sible to continue, and therefore I am compelled to ithout making any efforts to redress the grievance of her resignation was duly recommended by the endorsed by the Head of the Department, and thereafter, the the resignation, on the same very day. The entire lightning speed on the very same day. “I have experienced multiple incidents of harassment from Chemistry Department. The situation escalated severely when they went so far as to I request that strict action be taken against the following faculty members involved in this matter: Dr. Mandal, epak, Ms. Gargi, Dr. Naidu, Dr. Charanjit and Dr. Reena. Additionally, I request an inquiry against my former Doctoral Committee (DC) members for conspiring against me, for which they have already been reprimanded by the , a mere scolding has proven ineffective, , therefore, on the petitioner submitted her specifically mentioned that she is resigning due and this petitioner and her father. “I am officially resigning from my position due to the continued misbehavior and misconduct. Their actions have caused undue harassment to both me and my 67 year old father with no relief. Under these circumstances, I find it sible to continue, and therefore I am compelled to grievance was duly recommended by the the . The entire MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 5. to mention that the petitioner Technology year 2025. It is alleged that everything However, after that, the petitioner the respondent a complaint on 21.11.2025, regarding harassment and submitted resignation dated 22.11.2025, respondent/Institute, to the petitioner 6. respondent/Institute habitual of filing complaints against the Faculty Members, students. On this, the petitioner, who was present in file an affidavit with the respondent/Institute press the complaints and in future the matter was adjourned for today. 7. affidavit dated 25.05.2026 unequivocally any complaint by email will focus towards her studies only. The relevant part of is extracted 2579-2026 Before this Court embarks upon mention that the petitioner took admission Technology (IIT), Ropar, to pursue her Ph.D. Chemistry Programme . It is alleged that everything was going after that, the petitioner started facing the respondent, on account of demand of research faculty. a complaint on 21.11.2025, regarding harassment and submitted resignation dated 22.11.2025, by sending an email /Institute, on the same very day, the petitioner to approach this Court. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel Institute, had raised some trivial habitual of filing complaints against the Faculty Members, tudents. On this, the petitioner, who was present in affidavit with the respondent/Institute press the complaints, which she had submitted to the and in future as well, she will not indulge in such like activities. matter was adjourned for today. Learned counsel for the petitioner affidavit dated 25.05.2026, sworn by the petitioner unequivocally, and clearly has given the undertaking that she will not make any complaint by email, or otherwise, against anyone within the Institute will focus towards her studies only. The relevant part of hereinafter:- “1. That I had been a student vide entry No.2024CYZ0024 Enrolled in the Phd. Programme in Department of Chemistry at IIT, Ropar. 3 embarks upon the issue herein, it is important took admission in the Indian Institute of to pursue her Ph.D. Chemistry Programme, in the was going well till October, 2025. facing harassment, at the hands on account of demand of research faculty. The petitioner made a complaint on 21.11.2025, regarding harassment and submitted her by sending an email, which was accepted by the on the same very day, thereby, giving the cause of action of hearing, learned counsel for the trivial issue, that the petitioner is habitual of filing complaints against the Faculty Members, Guide and othe tudents. On this, the petitioner, who was present in the Court, undertook affidavit with the respondent/Institute, to the effect, that she will not submitted to the respondent/Institution , she will not indulge in such like activities. Thereafter, Learned counsel for the petitioner today has placed on record an sworn by the petitioner, wherein, she undertaking that she will not make against anyone within the Institute, and will focus towards her studies only. The relevant part of the affidavit (supra), “1. That I had been a student vide entry No.2024CYZ0024 Enrolled in the Phd. Programme in Department of Chemistry at IIT, Ropar. herein, it is important the Indian Institute of in the , 2025. of made her the , giving the cause of action for the that the petitioner is ther ook to not Institution, reafter, on record an she undertaking that she will not make and (supra), “1. That I had been a student vide entry No.2024CYZ0024 Enrolled in the Phd. Programme in Department of MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 8. respondent/Institute. despite she ha to contest the instant 9. respondent/Institute, is challenged by the petition for issuance of 10. appointed as submitted that the the earlier counsel, note, as well as, writ in the nature seeking challenge to the order da be bonafide and for this Therefore, the head amended, to the effe prayer already made, the petitioner certiorari 2579-2026 2. That previously I had to resign earlier. Now if my resignation is revoked and I am given a chance to pursue my studies in that case I undertake not to make any complaints by email or otherwise against anyone within the Institute. 3. That I will focus on my studies. resignation may be considered sympathetically.” The affidavit duly sworn by the petitioner was submitted with the /Institute. Learned counsel for the respondent despite she has given the undertaking (supra) to contest the instant writ petition on merit. The first technical issue, as raised by /Institute, is that the order dated 22.11.2025 by the petitioner, as the prayer in the instant petition for issuance of a mandamus. At this stage, Mr. Amit Kumar appointed as ‘Legal Aid Counsel’, by this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026, submitted that the petition in not happily drafted as per legal requirement by the earlier counsel, and has made an oral request , as well as, the prayer clause of the instant writ petition, viz. nature of mandamus, it should be co seeking challenge to the order dated 22.11.2025. bonafide and innocuous, as purely a technical objection has been raised and for this technical/clerical error, the petitioner cannot be the head note, as well as, the prayer clause of the instant petition is amended, to the effect, that by way of instant writ petition, in addition to the prayer already made, the petitioner also seek for quashing of the order dated 22.11.2025. 4 ously I had to resign earlier. Now if my resignation is revoked and I am given a chance to pursue my studies in that case I undertake not to make any complaints by email or otherwise against anyone within 3. That I will focus on my studies. Revocation of my resignation may be considered sympathetically.” duly sworn by the petitioner was submitted with the Learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, submits that supra), the respondent/Institute, wishes petition on merit. raised by learned counsel for the order dated 22.11.2025, has not been in the instant petition is made only Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate, who wa by this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026, drafted as per legal requirement by made an oral request for amendment of the head the prayer clause of the instant writ petition, viz. instead of be considered as a writ of certiorari ted 22.11.2025. The above request is found to technical objection has been raised petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer , the prayer clause of the instant petition is by way of instant writ petition, in addition to the seeks issuance of writ in the nature of of the order dated 22.11.2025. ously I had to resign earlier. Now if my resignation is revoked and I am given a chance to pursue my studies in that case I undertake not to make any complaints by email or otherwise against anyone within Revocation of my duly sworn by the petitioner was submitted with the submits that ishes learned counsel for the has not been is made only who was by this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026, drafted as per legal requirement by head instead of certiorari, request is found to technical objection has been raised, allowed to suffer. , the prayer clause of the instant petition is by way of instant writ petition, in addition to the ture of of the order dated 22.11.2025. MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 Therefore, the in the prayer clause 11. judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in No.1137 of 2018 Pradesh and another’ circumstances, where the judicial officer has tendered her resignation, was allowed to be withdrawn after observing that the same was not voluntary. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereinafter : 12. Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in three others’ attending circumstances is required to be considered to whether, the resignation was volunt extracted hereinafter : 2579-2026 refore, the Registry is directed to carry out the requisite corrections, prayer clause, as well as, in the head note of the instant petition Learned counsel for the petitioner has passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in No.1137 of 2018, titled ‘Ms. X vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another’ decided on 10.02.2022, circumstances, where the judicial officer has tendered her resignation, was allowed to be withdrawn after observing that the same was not voluntary. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereinafter :- “86. It will not be out o High Courts, a practice is followed, that whenever a Judicial Officer having good track record tenders his/her resignation, an attempt is made by the Senior Judges of the High Court to counsel and persuade him/her to withdra the resignation. Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer. Losing a good Judicial Officer without counseling him/her and without giving him/her an opportunity to introspect and re be in the interest of either the Judiciary. We find that it will be in the interest of judiciary that such a practice is followed by all the High Courts.” He, further placed reliance upon Judicature at Allahabad, in ‘Smt. Anita Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and three others’ decided on 07.01.2025, to submit circumstances is required to be considered to the resignation was voluntary or not extracted hereinafter :- “7. The Court has to consider as to whether contents of resignation letter dated 14.10.2020 was a resignation simplicitor or it was due to certain attending 5 Registry is directed to carry out the requisite corrections, both , in the head note of the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) ‘Ms. X vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya decided on 10.02.2022, to submit that in the similar circumstances, where the judicial officer has tendered her resignation, was allowed to be withdrawn after observing that the same was not voluntary. The - It will not be out of place to mention that in some High Courts, a practice is followed, that whenever a Judicial Officer having good track record tenders his/her resignation, an attempt is made by the Senior Judges of the High Court to counsel and persuade him/her to withdra the resignation. Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer. Losing a good Judicial Officer without counseling him/her and without giving him/her an opportunity to introspect and re-think, will not be in the interest of either the Judicial Officer or the Judiciary. We find that it will be in the interest of judiciary that such a practice is followed by all the High Courts.” upon the judgment passed by the High Smt. Anita Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and decided on 07.01.2025, to submit that it was held that the circumstances is required to be considered to ascertain, as to or not. The relevant paragraph “7. The Court has to consider as to whether contents of resignation letter dated 14.10.2020 was a resignation simplicitor or it was due to certain attending both placed reliance upon the Writ Petition (Civil) ‘Ms. X vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya that in the similar circumstances, where the judicial officer has tendered her resignation, was allowed to be withdrawn after observing that the same was not voluntary. The f place to mention that in some High Courts, a practice is followed, that whenever a Judicial Officer having good track record tenders his/her resignation, an attempt is made by the Senior Judges of the High Court to counsel and persuade him/her to withdraw the resignation. Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer. Losing a good Judicial Officer without counseling him/her and without giving think, will not Judicial Officer or the Judiciary. We find that it will be in the interest of judiciary judgment passed by the High Smt. Anita Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and it was held that the ascertain, as to . The relevant paragraph is “7. The Court has to consider as to whether contents of resignation letter dated 14.10.2020 was a resignation simplicitor or it was due to certain attending MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 13. opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the prayer made therein. He further submits that the instant petition concealment of material facts petitioner subsequently took Medicine, Jammu regarding her continuous conduct of making false complaint members and the students 14. this has no relevancy is put to challenge the petitioner was if disclosed, (supra). Therefore, this technical objection is als 15. submits that most of the complaints of the petitioner were redressed the Guide of her choice was given there were no compelling circumstances and the resignation was voluntary, and once it is accepted request for revocation 2579-2026 circumstances and if there were attending circumstances, as to whether it would be sufficient to reconsider her application for resignation and for that as to whether an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to reconsider her resignation or not.” Learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the instant writ petition should be dismissed, on account of the prayer made therein. He further submits that the instant petition concealment of material facts, as after submitting subsequently took admission in CSIR, , Jammu, and furthermore, they have also received an email regarding her continuous conduct of making false complaint members and the students, studying therein (CSIR) This Court has considered the above said no relevancy, at all, with the legality of order dated 22.11.2025 is put to challenge, before this Court, whereby, the resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted, and most important , would not have any impact, to con . Therefore, this technical objection is als Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, further submits that most of the complaints of the petitioner were redressed uide of her choice was given to her, no compelling circumstances and the resignation was and once it is accepted, the same request for revocation was made, and same is pending consideration till date. 6 circumstances and if there were attending circumstances, it would be sufficient to reconsider her application for resignation and for that as to whether an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to reconsider her Learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, vociferously the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and should be dismissed, on account of the prayer made therein. He further submits that the instant petition is based up fter submitting the resignation, the in CSIR, Indian Institute of Integrative they have also received an email regarding her continuous conduct of making false complaints against faculty studying therein (CSIR). the above said objection, and finds that the legality of order dated 22.11.2025, which s Court, whereby, the resignation submitted by and most importantly, the subsequent events, even to consider the legality of the order . Therefore, this technical objection is also rejected. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, further submits that most of the complaints of the petitioner were redressed, and even on three occasions, and therefore, no compelling circumstances and the resignation was completely same cannot be withdrawn, and also and same is pending consideration till date. circumstances and if there were attending circumstances, it would be sufficient to reconsider her application for resignation and for that as to whether an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to reconsider her vociferously and should be dismissed, on account of the upon , the grative they have also received an email, against faculty that which s Court, whereby, the resignation submitted by even order Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, further and even three occasions, and therefore, completely and also and same is pending consideration till date. MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 16. order to facilitate the petitioner Doctoral Committee initiative to talk with the petitioner, with regard to her mental we to assist her, including her agreed. However, later on, the Director raising the concern referring to the respondent/Institute, has no intent 17. 18. counsel for the any notice, not in dispute that there was no complaint against the petitioner misconduct or involving in any the respondent/ members and learned counsel for the respondent contemplate circumstances, submitted by the petitioner was volunt circumstances 19. against certain faculty members. The said Secondly, it is not the stand of the respondent any inquiry, 2579-2026 He further referring to a specif order to facilitate the petitioner, the Director called Doctoral Committee (DC), and in the said initiative to talk with the petitioner, with regard to her mental we to assist her, including her Research Programme . However, later on, the Director received an email dated 29.09.2025 raising the concern regarding frivolous email to the conduct of the petitioner respondent/Institute, has no intent to revoke No other argument was raised before this Court. At this stage, this Court has put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner has ever been served for any misconduct, to which, he fairly concedes not in dispute that there was no complaint against the petitioner isconduct or involving in any indiscipline respondent/Institute, is of filing multiple complaint members and the fellow students. Even, this counsel for the respondent, that the contemplated, nor took any disciplinary action against the petitioner. circumstances, this Court needs to evaluate submitted by the petitioner was volunt circumstances, as alleged by her. On 21.11.2025, she wrote a complaint ainst certain faculty members. The said it is not the stand of the respondent , the complaint was based on false allegations. Once no cognizance 7 He further referring to a specific event, i.e., on 03.08.2025, , the Director called a meeting of members of meeting, Dr. Tharamani, took the initiative to talk with the petitioner, with regard to her mental well-being, and Research Programme, to which, the petitioner received an email dated 29.09.2025 emails sent by the petitioner, and conduct of the petitioner, he submits that the her resignation. No other argument was raised before this Court. , this Court has put a specific query to learned the petitioner has ever been served , to which, he fairly concedes in negative. It is not in dispute that there was no complaint against the petitioner regarding ipline activities. The only grievance of of filing multiple complaints against faculty Even, this fact has not been denied that the respondent/Institute, neither action against the petitioner. In these evaluate, as to whether, the resignation submitted by the petitioner was voluntary, or under the compelling On 21.11.2025, she wrote a complaint, requesting to take action ainst certain faculty members. The said complaint was never redressed it is not the stand of the respondent/Institute that after conducting nt was based on false allegations. Once no cognizance , in members of took the being, and petitioner received an email dated 29.09.2025, s sent by the petitioner, and , he submits that the , this Court has put a specific query to learned the petitioner has ever been served It is regarding The only grievance of faculty denied by either In these the resignation or under the compelling requesting to take action dressed. conducting nt was based on false allegations. Once no cognizance MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 was taken on the complaint (supra), she, as alleged, has was not simplicito submitted under the compelling circumstances. The supervisor of the respondent/Institute, instead of taking care of future of the student, on the same very day, with a lightning speed, recommended the accepta resignation, which was subsequently endorsed by the Head of the Department, and finally accepted by the Registrar of the respondent/Institute, which in fact, reflects that the respondent/Institute, was in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner. The irrelevant objection respondent/Institute, clearly the petitioner to to get rid of t 20. hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary under the compelling circumstances petitioner has all right the petitioner for withdrawal of which was neither considered, propelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 21. resignation is hereby, allowed. Further allow the petitioner forthwith. 2579-2026 was taken on the complaint (supra), she, on account of as alleged, has submitted a resignation. However simplicitor resignation, rather, perusal of the same reflects that it was submitted under the compelling circumstances. The supervisor of the respondent/Institute, instead of taking care of future of the student, on the same very day, with a lightning speed, recommended the accepta resignation, which was subsequently endorsed by the Head of the Department, and finally accepted by the Registrar of the respondent/Institute, which in fact, reflects that the respondent/Institute, was in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner. irrelevant objection raised before this Court, by learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, clearly reflects their conduct, the petitioner to join back, to continue her studies to get rid of the petitioner. In these circumstances, as recorded above, t hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary under the compelling circumstances, as petitioner has all right to get her such resignation withdraw the petitioner for withdrawal of her resignation which was neither considered, rather kept pending for abo pelling the petitioner to approach this Court. In view of the above, order dated 22.11.2025, accepting the resignation is hereby, set aside. Consequently, the instant writ petition is Further, a mandamus, is passed upon the respondent/ the petitioner to continue her Ph.D. Chemistry Programme 8 on account of consistent harassment owever, the contents of resignation ather, perusal of the same reflects that it was submitted under the compelling circumstances. The supervisor of the respondent/Institute, instead of taking care of future of the student, on the same very day, with a lightning speed, recommended the acceptance of the resignation, which was subsequently endorsed by the Head of the Department, and finally accepted by the Registrar of the respondent/Institute, which in fact, reflects that the respondent/Institute, was in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner. raised before this Court, by learned counsel for the reflects their conduct, that they still do not wish join back, to continue her studies, rather their attempt is only In these circumstances, as recorded above, this Court has no hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary, rather, it was explained above. Therefore, the resignation withdrawn. The request of resignation, ought to have been accepted rather kept pending for about three months pelling the petitioner to approach this Court. order dated 22.11.2025, accepting the Consequently, the instant writ petition is passed upon the respondent/Institute, Ph.D. Chemistry Programme/course harassment, resignation ather, perusal of the same reflects that it was submitted under the compelling circumstances. The supervisor of the respondent/Institute, instead of taking care of future of the student, on the nce of the resignation, which was subsequently endorsed by the Head of the Department, and finally accepted by the Registrar of the respondent/Institute, which in fact, reflects that the respondent/Institute, was in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner. raised before this Court, by learned counsel for the that they still do not wish , rather their attempt is only his Court has no , rather, it was Therefore, the The request of to have been accepted, months, order dated 22.11.2025, accepting the Consequently, the instant writ petition is to /course, MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-12579 22. respondent/Institute respondent/Institute against the petitioner. 23. conduct of the respondent this Court request consider all the circumstances allowing the petitioner to 24. appreciation for a ‘Legal Aid Counsel’ May 26, 2026 Manpreet 2579-2026 The petitioner shall adhere to the Institute. In case of any violation Institute, would be at liberty to take apposite disciplinary act against the petitioner. In view of the peculiar circumstances conduct of the respondent/Institute, as they are hotly contesting this litigation, this Court requests the Director of the respondent/ consider all the circumstances, and thereby allowing the petitioner to resettle and complete her studies. Before parting with the order (s appreciation for Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate, for assisting ‘Legal Aid Counsel’ that too on a short notice. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 9 adhere to the undertaking given to the n case of any violation of the undertaking, the would be at liberty to take apposite disciplinary action In view of the peculiar circumstances, as reflected from the /Institute, as they are hotly contesting this litigation, of the respondent/Institute, to sympathetically and thereby, try to create an atmosphere settle and complete her studies. with the order (supra), this Court record Advocate, for assisting this Court, as too on a short notice. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No undertaking given to the the ion from the /Institute, as they are hotly contesting this litigation, to sympathetically try to create an atmosphere this Court records , as MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment