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


Jai Kumar v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. - 56009 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 15467 (13 September 2007)

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.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56009 of 2004

Jai Kumar ............ Petitioner


State of U.P. and others ............ Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition has been filed seeking a writ, order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by respondent no.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been claimed to command respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to appear in B.T.C. Final year examination 2005. Facts are that petitioner appeared in B.T.C. IInd Year examination conducted in the year 1985 as a regular student from Government Training College, Roorki, Saharanpur and was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner left the studies and joined Indian Army. While in service the petitioner made various applications for permitting him to appear as part time examinee in B.T.C. IInd Year examination but he was not permitted. However, on an application moved by the petitioner, a letter was issued by respondent no.2 to the Principal of the Institution with a copy to the petitioner to fill the form as ex-student and forwarded the same along with requisite fees. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.12.2004 the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the first year B.T.C. Examination was cleared by him under the old curriculum which has now gone a sea change as such it would not be proper to allow him to appear in second year examination. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court. On two occasions, petitioner was directed to produce the relevant rules which may go to show that he can appear in B.T.C. IInd Year examination as an ex-student even after 20 years. However, the petitioner has failed to produce such rules. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, relevant rules has been reproduced in paragraph 11 which goes to show that facility to appear as part time examinee has only been made available to the candidates who have failed to in B.T.C. Ist Year examination along with IInd Year examination. No such facility has been extended to the candidate who have either failed or failed to appear in the B.T.C. IInd Year examination. In the absence of rules in that regard, petitioner cannot be permitted to appear in the B.T.C. IInd Year examination as part time examinee that too after a period of 20 years during which even the curriculum has gone a sea change.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order passed by respondent no.2.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.




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.