Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PANKAJ SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pankaj Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - A No. 19969 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 7556 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 7

          Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19969 Of 2006

Deo Saran father and guardian of Km. Sapna regular student of High School having roll no. 1783981 Mahatama Jyotir Rao Phule Vidya Ashram Higher Secondary School, Kara Dham, Kausambi.                                                                                             Petitioner

                                                              Versus

State of U.P. and others                                                                        Respondents

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging himself to be the father and guardian of one Km. Sapna regular student of High School having roll no. 1783981 Mahatama Jyotir Rao Phule Vidya Ashram Higher Secondary School, Kara Dham, Kausambi.                                                                                                

It appears from the record that D.I.O.S. Kaushambi vide order dated 31.3.2006 has cancelled the examination of first paper of Mathematics of a large number of students including one km. Sapna. It has been directed that re-examination of the aforesaid paper be held on 12.4.2006 in Agrasen Inter College, Allahabad..

The counsel for the petitioner submits that at least 15 days' time should have been given to the petitioner before changing the centre. He has also referred to the Daininidni, maintained by the Examination Centres/Colleges through in which entries with regard to holding of examination each day are made. He further submits that from perusal of the entries made in the Dainidini it appears that there was no mass copying at the examination centre on that date and there was no basis for cancellation of the examination centre, as such it is not just and proper for reholding re- examination.

           The counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as in the entire district of Kaushambi mass copying in Mathematics Ist paper has been done and the examination centre of the petitioner has rightly been changed.

It appears that the Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad vide letters dated 30.3.2006 and 31.3.2006 directed for re-holding of the examination of  Mathematics Ist paper  of the petitioner on 12.4.2006 in Agrasen Inter College, Allahabad in view of the report of mass copying in the entire examination centers of district Kaushambi.

           This petition has been filed today i.e. 10.4.2006 in the Registry. On a mention made by the counsel for the petitioner that there is urgency in this case it has been taken up as unlisted today. The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that the old examination centre should be allowed to continue, as there had been no mass copying in the centre. This prayer cannot be allowed at this belated stage particularly in view of the fact that the examination is scheduled to be held on 12.4.2006 in Agrasen Inter College, Allahabad.  

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.3.2006, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity therein. The examination centre has been cancelled by the D.I.O.S. on the report received by him in regard to mass copying. The authority allotting the centres is the best Judge as to which college is to be allotted examination centre..  

For the reasons stated above, no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  

             The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 10.4.2006

CPP/-


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

Advertisement

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 |

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