Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 3813 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15844 (20 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3813 of 2007

Vinod Yadav

Vs.

State of U.P & others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

Petitioner has filed present writ petition for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to admit the petitioner in his allotted college i.e. Sri Gandhi Snatkattar Mahavidyalaya Malyori, Azamgarh for B.Ed. Course of Sessions 2006-2007 and alternatively it has been prayed for issuing writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Petitioner undertook B.Ed. Entrance Test Examination conducted by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur for getting admission in B.Ed course at any one of the affiliated college of the aforementioned University. Petitioner is member of OBC category and has also been holder of N.S.S. Certificate of 240 days and two camps organized from 26.2.2001 to 4.2.2001 and 24.10.2001 to 2.11.2001 respectively. Certificate of N.S.S. dated 8.3.2007 was duly signed by the Vice Chancellor of Allahabad University. Result was declared wherein petitioner secured 139 marks in Ist paper, 131 marks in 2nd paper and on account of N.S.S. Certificate, weightage of 15 marks was provided to him. Petitioner was called for counselling. Petitioner appeared before the Counselling Committee after depositing Rs. 100/- as Counselling fee. Thereafter, after verification of certificate has been done, authority concerned refused to give admission to the petitioner mentioning therein that petitioner is not entitled for weightage of 15 marks and rather he is entitled for weightage of 10 marks as one camp, which he had attended was 7 days camp. Petitioner has contended that he was allocated Sri Gandhi Snatkattar Mahavidyalaya Malyori, Azamgarh, but on account of this attitude of respondent he was deprived of admission, at this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

On the presentation of the writ petition , counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that in B.Ed. Entrance Test Examination conducted , petitioner obtained 285 marks including the 15 marks of weightage under the instruction No. 26(B) (2) given in the brochure for Rashtriya Seva Yojana. It has been stated that second camp was only 7 days duration and this fact came into light in the scrutiny, then 5 marks were deducted and on account of this, petitioner is not at all entitled for admission, as his marks come down to 280 and consequently, petitioner is out of merit. It has also been stated that process of counseling starts firstly by allotting the college on the basis of merit list. Thereafter the papers are forwarded to the counselling Committee constituted for the said college, which includes Principal of the said college, Head of B.Ed Department of the said college and one officer of the University and the candidate is required to appear before the said Counselling Committee for verification of documents. In this process, the petitioner was allotted the college on the basis of merit i.e. 285 marks. The entire emphasis is that benefit qua second camp which was of seven days cannot be extended.

To this counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has been filed and it has been contended that action of the University is totally unjustified and further there is no requirement of that camp. It has been contended that petitioner has participated in service of 240 hours and attended camp first on ten days and second of 7 days. Petitioner has contended that he is entitled for weightage and 5 marks has been unnecessarily deducted.

After pleading mentioned above, have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of parties.

Sri V.K. Upadhaya, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case arbitrary treatment has been meted to the petitioner, inasmuch as initially he was awarded 15 weightage marks and thereafter on totally unlawful basis 5 marks has been deducted , which could not have been done, as such justice be done to the petitioner by accorded him admission.

Sri Anil, Tiwari, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-University on the other hand contended that petitioner was not at all entitled for 15 weightage marks and 5 marks have rightly been deducted. , as such no interference be made and coupled with academic Session had already came to an end.

Brochure, which was published, and which deals with providing weightage qua NSS certificate holders, provides as follows:

^^??2?? jk"V~h; lsok ;kstuk ??,u0,l0,l0?? esa%

??d?? 240 ?kaVs dh lsok rFkk de ls de nks f'kfojksa esa lgHkkfxrk gsrq& dksM la[;k ??NS&1?? 15 vad

??[k?? 240 ?kaVs dh lsok rFkk ,d f'kfoj esa lgHkkfxrk gsrq& dksM la[;k ??NS&2?? 10 vad

??x?? ek= 240 ?kaVs dh lsok gsrq& dksM la[;k ??NS&3?? 05 vad

??dqyifr }kjk gLrk{kfjr izek.ki= gh ekU; gksxk??

Perusal of said relevant extract of Brochure would go to show that for Code No. (NS-1) 15 marks weightage has been provided wherein 240 hours service has been rendered and minimum two camp had been attended. Qua Code No. (NS-2) 10 marks have been provided for wherein 240 hours services has been rendered with participation in one camp. In Code (NS-3) 5 marks have been awarded towards weightage and 240 hours of service was required. Certificate issued by the Vice Chancellor was to be accepted. Petitioner got certificate from the Vice Chancellor wherein period for which petitioner had rendered service and two camp which has been attended by him alongwith relevant period was duly certified. After result had been declared as petitioner had completed 240 days and had attended two camp , 15 marks weightage has been provided to him and thereafter petitioner appeared before the counselling committee, at the said juncture Counselling Committee has proceeded to reduce 5 marks of weightage, which has been awarded to the petitioner.

As far as Brochure is concerned Brochure does not mention that the two camps in question should be of 10 days alongwith 240 hours of service, then only then 15 marks would be awarded . Brochure merely provided for 240 hours of service and participation in at least two camps. Along with Counter affidavit prospectus of Rashtriya Seva Yojna of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur have been appended and therein at page 14 Item No.3, the work programme of Rashtriya Seva Yojna has been provided for; same provides that in Rashtriya Seva Yojna in every year 120 hours work is to be performed and candidate of second year will have to attend 10 days camp. At page 15 of the Counter affidavit, while dealing with career prospects, it has been mentioned that N.S.S. Certificate holders, in B.Ed entrance test, for one camp would get ten marks and for two camps fifteen marks. This particular prospectus of Rashtriya Seva Yojna at no point of time formed part and parcel of the Brochure which had been supplied to petitioner. Petitioner has done Rashtriya Seva Yojna Service from the University of Allahabad and Vice Chancellor of the said University had given certificate, that petitioner has attended two camp and further had completed 240 hours of service. By no stretch of imagination guidelines of Rashtriya Seva Yojna of Purvanchal University, Jaunpur could have been extended in respect of the student of the other University. Brochure qua admission was clear and categorical, 240 hours of service, with two camps. Duration was not at all mentioned therein. Government Order dated 19.12.2000 provides for 7 days camps also, which has been described as special camp on day and night basis. Thus in the present case twocamps were there w8ith 240 hours of service, which was duly certified by Voce Chancellor, then weightage of 15 marks had to be awarded, which had been earlier awarded but subsequently deducted. The petitioner fulfilled requisite terms and conditions for weightage and it was wholly unjustifiable action on the part of the University in deducting five marks from the weightage. Petitioner was thus entitled for admission and he has been illegally deprived of admission in B.Ed. Course , 2006-2007.

Next question is to what relief can be accorded to petitioner, when session is already over. Now where students are victim of arbitrary action of the respondents, specially in respect of professional courses, then judicial trend has changed and orders are passed to protect the interest of the incumbent.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chandra V. Chairman Jee and others, 2004(23) AIC 96 (SC) came to the rescue of the candidate where admission had been illegally denied. This Court in the case of Vijay Prakash (Minor) V. Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and other reported in (2005)2 UPLBEC 1511, has taken the view that where candidate is not at all fault, direction be issued for admission in next academic session. Similarly Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Deep Jaswal V. State of Punjab and others reported in (2006)9 SCC 597 where candidate was not at all at fault, directed for admission in next academic session.

Consequently, in the present case as petitioner is also not at all fault and has been selected on merit, as such respondents are directed to accord admission to him for the Session 2007-2008 at any one of the affiliated college of aforementioned University.

With these observations writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

Dt.20.9.2007

T.S.


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.