Case Details

HANUMAN PRASAD PRAJAPATI versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. BASIC EDUCATION & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

Hanuman Prasad Prajapati v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Basic Education & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 49301 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 658 (10 January 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49301 of 2004

Hanuman Prasad Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The petitioner had applied for admission to the B.T.C. course. Having qualified in the entrance test, when he was not granted admission on the ground that he was not a resident of district Azamgarh, he filed writ petition no. 13635 of 2001, which was allowed by this Court on 20.5.2003 and a direction was issued to the respondents to admit the petitioner in the B.T.C. course. Thereafter admission was granted to the petitioner and he was also permitted to appear in the first year examination. A controversy was thereafter raised with regard to the declaration of result of the petitioner because of shortage of attendance, which was resolved by the respondents themselves and the result of the petitioner was declared, taking into account the attendance of extra classes which had been attended by the petitioner during the first year course. The petitioner was thereafter permitted to appear in the second year examination of the B.T.C. course but his result has yet not been declared.

The contention of the respondents is that because of shortage of attendance in the first year course the result of the second year of the petitioner is not being declared.

Considering the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, on the report of the Principal dated 26.12.2004 the shortage of attendance of the petitioner in the first year course had been condoned, after taking into account that the petitioner had attended certain extra classes during that year, which was also to be counted in his attendance. It is not permissible for the respondents to withhold the result of the petitioner for the second year examination on the basis of shortage of attendance in the first year course. The respondents, in any case, have submitted that with regard to this, they have written letters to National Council for Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.) but have not received any response from them and hence the result of the petitioner is not being declared. Considering the aforesaid facts and keeping in view that there is no assertion of there being shortage of attendance of the petitioner in the second year course, in my view, the respondents ought to have declared the result of the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. It is directed that the respondents shall declare the result of the second year B.T.C. course of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before Respondent no.4. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

Dt/- January 10, 2006

dps

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement