Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUKHWINDER versus STATE OF HARYANA& ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sukhwinder v. State of Haryana& Ors - CWP-3280-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3280 (18 May 2006)

C.W.P. 3280 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

C.W.P.No. 3280 of 2006

Date of decision: May 2,2006

Sukhwinder V. State of Haryanaand others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRITAM PAL

Present: Shri Devender Punia,Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ajay Gulati, Assistant Advocate General,Haryana.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

Litter carelessness and negligence of respondent No.2, Board of School Education, Haryana(hereinafter referred to as the "Board") has resulted in a great hardship, academic loss and harassment to the petitioner.

The petitioner had appeared in an entrance test seeking admission to Diploma in Education Course conducted by the Board on behalf of State Council of Education and Research and Training,Haryana,respondent No.3.

Along with the application form, she had duly filled the examination form and had also submitted the requisite fee. The entrance examination was to be held on October 9,2005.The petitioner received her admit card on October 8,2005. Concededly the aforesaid admit card contained the photograph and signatures of the petitioner, but indicated some body else's name and father's name. Since the examination was to commence on the very next day itself,therefore, on the strength of the aforesaid admit card, the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination under Roll No.0804081.

After the result of the candidates was declared, the petitioner scored a merit position, which entitled her to admission to the aforesaid course. Consequently, the petitioner was called for counselling by the State Council of Education and Research,respondent No.3. At the time of counselling, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the State C.W.P. 3280 of 2006 2

Council and she was denied admission.

The petitioner has now approached this court through the present petition.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents .

The facts as pleaded by the petitioner have not been disputed by the respondents in their written statement. However, the aforesaid respondents have maintained that since the petitioner had never taken any steps to get her admit card corrected prior to the entrance examination,therefore, she was not entitled to any relief. However it has not been denied by the said respondents that the petitioner had so appeared in the entrance test and had qualified and scored a merit position, which entitled her to be admitted to the course.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival pleas raised by them,we are satisfied that the respondents are in fact trying to blame the petitioner for their own wrong.

The petitioner has already been harassed sufficiently. The petitioner had duly applied for appearing in the aforesaid entrance test. She had supplied her own photograph and had filled the details correctly. However, respondent No.2 - Board had committed a mistake whereby the photograph of the petitioner and her signatures were correctly indicated in admit card but name of one Suman daughter of Ishwar was indicated. However,on the strength of her photograph and signatures, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the entrance test. Once respondent No.2 had acted negligently and bungled the Admit Card and had mixed the form of aforesaid Suman with the admission form of the present petitioner, Sukhwinder wife of Ram Mehar ,then the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the aforesaid mixup. It is also conceded position between the parties that the aforesaid Suman had absented herself and had not appeared in the entrance examination.

In view of the aforesaid fact, we allow the present petition and direct respondent No.3 to admit the petitioner, as per her merit position in diploma in Education Course, on the basis of entrance test conducted on October 9,2005.Necessary process in this regard shall be completed within a period of two weeks from today.

C.W.P. 3280 of 2006 3

Since the petitioner has been made to suffer unnecessarily and had to incur expenses for approaching this court and resulted in academic loss of her studies, the present petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs.15,000/-. The costs shall be payable by Board of School Education,Haryana and shall be remitted to the petitioner, through a bank draft within two weeks from the date a certified of this order is received.

A copy of the order begiven Dasti on usual payment.

(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.