Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dhyan Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 22544 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 7520 (10 April 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).


             Court No. 7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22544 of 2005

Dhyan Singh & another


State of U.P. & Others


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit.

The petitioners appeared in the B.Ed. Examination, 2004 which was cancelled by the State Government. Aggrieved the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 28690 of 2004, Laxmi Shankar Yadav and others Versus State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 28.7.2004 in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 26976 of 2004, Puneet Kumar Rai & Others Vs Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University & Others, by His Lordship Arun Tandon, J. vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2004.

By the judgment the entire examination of B.Ed. was cancelled by the Court. In pursuance of the judgment of the Court, the respondents conducted re-examination of the petitioners. In the mean time a review application was filed by some of the candidates (excluding the petitioners) for review of the judgment in Puneet Kumar Rai (Supra) which was allowed by order dated 1 October 2004 in the following terms: -

"In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that (a) the University shall hold re-examination in respect of those papers only for which there has been a report of mass copying by the Flying Squad on the particular day when the particular paper was earlier held and (b) the University shall declare the result of the students within one month from the date of holding the said re-examination in the papers concerned, after taking into consideration the marks obtained by the petitioners in the re-examination along with the marks obtained by the petitioners in other subjects in respect whereof there has been no complaint of mass copying."

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the writ petition of the petitioners was disposed of in terms of the judgment in Puneet Kumar Rai and others, the judgment and order dated 1.10.2004 in the review application is also applicable to them. According to the petitioners they appeared in all the subjects/papers in the re-examination but their result was withheld without any reason in all the papers except in Hindi subject and their representation dated 5.3.2005 in this regard fell on deaf ears of the University authorities.

As stated above, re-examination of the petitioners was held before the Court passed the order on review application. The respondents have, however, in the mean time declared the result of examination on the basis of direction given by this Court dated 1.10.2004 on the review application, i.e., marks of the re-examination have been given to the petitioners only in those cases where there was a report of mass copying.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the result of all the papers ought to have been declared and not only of those papers wherein there was report of mass copying.

Since this writ petition is in the nature of modification/review of the orders/judgment passed by His Lordship Arun Tandon, J. in Writ Petition No. 26976 of 2004 and the order in the review application filed therein as well as the judgment in the petitioners' case in Writ Petition No. 28690 of 2004 have been passed by His Lordship Arun Tandon, J, it would be appropriate that this matter may be heard and decided by His Lordship Arun Tandon, J.

Let this case be placed before His Lordship Hon'ble the Chief Justice for nomination or any other appropriate order, which His Lordship thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Dated: 10.4.2006



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


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.