Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

I.H. NAQVI versus M.S.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


I.H. Naqvi v. M.S.P. - WRIT - C No. 1897 of 1989 [2000] RD-AH 16 (12 October 2000)

 

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.4

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.1897 OF 1989

Ishrat Hussain Naqvi

             v.

Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad  & Ors.

----------------------------  

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

The petitioner, Ishart Hussain Naqvi has filed the present petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the cancellation of the result for the year 1987 in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad as contained in the letter dated 2.2.1989 [filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition]. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus declaring him as having passed in the year 1987 Intermediate Examination.

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad as a private candidate from Sarswati Inter College, Bareilly in the year 1987. He was allotted Roll No.427169 and appeared from F.R. Islamia Inter College, Bareilly, on 18.8.1987. The result was declared and he was declared passed with the note-'WB'. A provisional marksheet was also issued to the petitioner. The word 'WB' according to the instructions received by Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad denote mass-copying. According to the petitioner the Principal of Sarswati Vidyalaya Inter College, Bareilly, informed him that he had to appear before a committee appointed by the Board. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner stating therein that he used unfair means in respect of question no.6[a] of Mathematics-III Paper. It was alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner had answered the said question without drawing the diagram. The petitioner submitted his explanation and stated that the had answered the question No.6 [a] with his own wisdom and according to his memory and he has not used any unfair means. The explanation given by the petitioner was not accepted and the committee decided to cancel his result vide order dated 7.1.1988. In the meantime, the petitioner had taken admission in B.A. Part-I in Roohilkhand University, Bareilly and had also passed B.A. Part-I examination. According to the petitioner he was not informed about the cancellation of his result and when

he came to know about the same he applied for a review on 2.6.88. In paragraph-3 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner sworn on 20.7.94 in support of Civil Misc.Application No.5246 of 1994, it has been stated that the petitioner has passed the B.A. Examination as also LL.B. I and IInd year examinations and at that time he was studying in LL.B. III year. Sri Shamim Ahmad holding brief of Sri Janardan Sahai had made a statement at the bar that the petitioner has since passed LL.B. III year also and is waiting to be enrolled as an Advocate.

The learned standing counsel on the directions of this court had produced the record of the Committee, which has considered the case of the petitioner regarding the use of unfair means. The said committee had not given any reasons as to why the explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable. It has simply agreed with the report of the examiner i.e. Screening Report and held the charges to have been established. The explanation given by the petitioner was a probable explanation and the question could have been

answered with the help of his memory. The cancellation of the result is thus, based on non-application of mind and cannot be sustained. Normally, the Court would have directed the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to decide the matter afresh, but taking into consideration that about 12 years have passed and the petitioner has by now done his B.A., LL.B., and no useful purpose would be served by directing the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to decide the matter again.

In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed

The respondent no.1 is directed to declare the result of the petitioner accordingly.

Dt.12.10.2000

Ak.


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.