Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SEEMA MOURYA versus STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Seema Mourya v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - C No. 51275 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 3721 (29 September 2005)

 

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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51275 of 2004

Seema Mourya                     Versus                State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.11.2004 passed Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Robertsganj, District Sonbhaddra, Respondent no.3, by which the admission of the petitioner in the institute for undergoing the course of B.T.C. has been cancelled. A further prayer has been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue her studies in the second year B.T.C. training course and to appear in the final examination.

The main ground for cancellation of the admission of the petitioner as set out in the impugned order is that in the admission form, the petitioner had declared that she had obtained 1143/1800 marks in B.A. examination which she claims to have passed from Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. After selection, the marksheet submitted by her was also to the effect that she had obtained 1143/1800 marks and on such basis she had got admission. However, on verification of the said marksheet from the respondent-University it was found to be forged and fabricated. After issuing notice to the petitioner on 29.10.2004, to which the petitioner submitted her reply on 2.11.2004 and on consideration of the same, the impugned order has been passed.

I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri S.D.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Nowhere in the writ petition has it been stated that in the form submitted by the petitioner filled up by her at the time of seeking admission she had not declared that she had obtained 1143/1800 marks although that was the specific ground for canceling her admission. It has also not been stated in the writ petition that she had not produced the mark sheet showing that she had obtained 1143/1800 marks on the basis of which she had got admission. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents it has been specifically averred that the petitioner herself filled up the data sheet in her own hand-writing and made the declaration that she had secured 1143 marks out of 1800 marks. There is no specific denial of the said assertion of the respondents.

The case of the petitioner now is that she had passed the B.A. Examination from Rajkiya Snatkottar Mahavidyalay Obra, Sonbhadra affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and had obtained 809 out of 1800 marks and even if such marks are taken into account, she would be selected for undergoing the B.T.C. course and as such there is no justification for canceling her admission. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-University, although it is accepted that the petitioner has passed B.A. with 809/1800 marks but it is categorically stated that the marksheet which had been submitted by the petitioner and had been sent to the University for verification was forged and fabricated as no such marksheet had ever been issued by the University.

The petitioner is seeking admission in a course after which she would be appointed as a teacher, which is a noble profession. It being not denied anywhere in the writ petition that she had filled up the form stating that she had obtained 1143/18000 marks and had submitted a marksheet supporting the same, which was ultimately found to be forged and fabricated, such person should not be allowed to undergo teacher's training. When the very foundation of seeking admission is on the basis of forgery, even if such a candidate is eligible for admission on the basis of her correct marksheet, the same should not be permitted. It appears that the petitioner had submitted the forged marksheet showing that she had obtained very high marks only in order to ensure and guarantee her admission. She did not want to take a chance of being denied admission on the basis of her actual marksheet as she had actually obtained much lesser marks on which basis she may or may not have been selected for admission in the B.T.C. course but she knew that on the basis of the fabricated marksheet she would be assured of admission.

As such, in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner would  not be entitled to any indulgence by this Court, specially in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For a petitioner to be entitled to the relief under this jurisdiction, she is not only expected to show that law is in her favour but that equity is also in her favour. In the present case, may be the petitioner would be entitled to admission on the basis of her correct marksheet but in the present case, equity being totally against her, as she had initially approached the authorities for admission on the basis of forged and fabricated marksheet and giving wrong declaration, she would not be entitled to any relief.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 29.9.2005

dps


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.