(1.) In this intra-Court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 12th July, 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has extended the benefit of realization of attendance on the ground that the said Respondents were on maternity leave. Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, learned Counsel for the Appellants has very fairly stated that he was required to file two appeals but he has filed a composite appeal. Learned Counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by making a distinction between the medical leave and maternity leave. He has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision in Sukriti Upadhyay v. University of Delhi, (LPA No. 539/2010 decided on 4th October, 2010) wherein this Court after referring to the rules invoked in paragraphs 8 to 12 has held thus:
(2.) Thereafter, the Division Bench has proceeded to state as follows:
(3.) We are of the considered opinion that the maternity leave could not have been put in a different compartment for the purpose of relaxation of attendance. In view of the aforesaid, the decision rendered by the learned single Judge to this extent suffers from an infirmity and is accordingly set aside. Be it noted, a peculiar circumstance has emerged in this case. Though we have allowed, appeal, we have asked Mr. M.J.S. Rupal whether the University has any objection to the benefit of relaxation to the two Respondents. Regard being had to the special features of the case, Mr. M.J.S. Rupal has fairly stated that the University has no objection to give the benefit of relaxation to the Respondent students. We record our appreciation for the statement made by Mr. M.J.S. Rupal after obtaining instructions from the University. We may also aptly note that the said concession has been given by the University as the result of the Respondents have already been declared. Needless to say that when a case is decided and benefit of concession is given, the same cannot be cited as a precedent in future cases. There shall be no order as to costs.