Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. Director Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan & Others - WRIT - C No. 8268 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 469 (21 February 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).


                                                                   Court no.7

                        Civil Misc Writ Petition no. 8268 of 2001

Ramesh Chandra Yadav         Versus  Director Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur

                                                            Prashikshan U.P. Lucknow and others.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

          This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for giving admission to the petitioner in B.T.C. training course 2001-2002.

In this case an illness slip of Sri R.B. Yadav has wrongly been sent. In fact Sri B.R. Yadav is the counsel for the petitioner who is present. The case is taken up in the revised list.  Sri N.D. Rai states that he is not appearing on behalf of the respondents in this case. His statement has been recorded in open Court.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

The standing counsel has produced the original records relating to the B.T.C. Entrance Examination, 2000. The petitioner claims that he had appeared in B.T.C. Entrance Examination 2000 with Roll No. 315138.  From the record it appears that one Anant Prasad having roll no. 315137 had secured 174.00 marks whereas the petitioner had obtained 098.25 marks. The petitioner is a OBC candidate. It further appears from the record that the last candidate of OBC had obtained 184.92 marks who had passed the Entrance Examination of BTC course, 2000. Hence, the petitioner could not have been given admission in BTC course even if he is given 174.00 marks with roll no. 315138. Sri Anant Prasad was a physically handicapped person.The petitioner does not belong to this category.  The petitioner has failed to obtain minimum qualifying marks i.e. 184.92 marks for admission in BTC examination 2000 as an OBC candidate.  

The standing counsel has produced the records pertaining to the result of the BTC Entrance Examination 2000 with the roll numbers of the candidates selected provisionally.  

The selected candidates have passed out the BTC course examination 2000 and the petitioner could not have been given admission in the said course and the subsequent examinations of the batch of candidates who have qualified in the examination are undegoing course. For this reason also, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, dimissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 21.2.2005



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.