Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NIDHI SANGHI versus DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION OF HARYA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nidhi Sanghi v. Director of Secondary Education of Harya - CWP-484-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3277 (18 May 2006)

C.W.P. No.484 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

C.W.P.No.484 of 2006(O&M)

Date of decision: May 2,2006

Nidhi Sanghi V. Director of Secondary Education of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRITAM PAL

Present: Shri N.S.Shekhawat,Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ajay Gulati,Assistant Advocate General,Haryana.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

The facts which emerge from the record shows that the petitioner had been granted a provisional admission in Swami Amar Dev Training Institute,respondent No.4. As per eligibility conditions, a candidate seeking admission in Diploma in Education Course was required to have passed graduation examination with English as one of the optional/elective subject from any recognised University. Concededly, the petitioner had not passed the graduation examination with English as one of the elective/optional subject. However, the petitioner had passed her B.Com.

Examination with business communication as one of the subjects. On the basis of the aforesaid fact,the petitioner claimed that examination passed by her be treated as equivalent to English subject in graduation examination.

The respondent-State Council for Educational Research and Training had provisionally accepted the plea of the petitioner and,as such she was granted provisional admission. However, she was required to get equivalent certificate from M.D. University within a period of five days.

Concededly, the petitioner has not been able to obtain the aforesaid certificate from M.D. University. As a consequence thereof, provisional admission granted to the petitioner had been cancelled.

The facts noticed above,have not even been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the C.W.P. No.484 of 2006

petitioner maintains that the petitioner had applied the M.D.University for the grant of aforesaid equivalent certificate but the said certificate has not been granted so far.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,we are satisfied that unless and until the petitioner is granted an equivalent certificate by M.D.University, she cannot be considered as eligible for admission to Diploma in Education Course .

Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the M.D.University seeking the aforesaid equivalent certificate. M.D.University, Rohtak is also directed to take a final decision upon the claim made by the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

(Viney Mittal )

Judge

( Pritam Pal )

May 2,2006 Judge

sks


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.