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


Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 10552 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11634 (17 July 2006)


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. 10552 of 2006

Rajesh Kumar Singh


State of U.P. & others


Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was a candidate of B.Ed. course, 2006 conducted by Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedakar University,Agra. After qualifying the written examination he appeared for counselling on 4.2.2006 and submitted all his degrees as well as the duly filled up Examination Form of B.Ed. 2006. Having found everything in order the petitioner was asked by the authorities to appear before the Counselling Board for allotment of college as per merit.

It appears that the petitioner claimed weightage of 25 marks under the Rules and secured 131 rank from amongst 5005 candidates who had qualified for counselling.

It further appears that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that he had sought as dependent of employee of CISE, for which no weightage was provided under the Rules.

It appears from perusal of the application form of the petitioner that item no. 18 pertains to weightage claimed by the petitioner.

        Item nos. 18(i) and (ii) are as under:-

                          " 18 (i) POLICE/PAC/BSF/ITBF/CRPF/RAF/CISE/HG

                             (Active) Employees/Son/Daughter /CDO" and 15 marks   are to be allotted in this category.

                              18 (ii) Active/Ex Defence Employee/Dependent"  

It appears that maximum marks are to be allotted for both item no's 18(i) and 18(ii).

After hearing counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the candidature of the petitioner could have been cancelled only if a false certificate had been filed by the petitioner and in case any certificate mentioned in the application form could not be submitted at time of counselling, only the weightage could be denied in respect of category for which the certificate was not filed. Accordingly, the candidates name could be downgraded in the merit list. However, as has been stated by the petitioner in para 12 of the writ petition that the petitioner was sent before the Counselling Board for counselling only after all his certificates had been found in order and as such the cancellation of petitioner's candidature is not only arbitrary and illegal having been done without any opportunity of hearing as mentioned in para 15 but is also malafide and capricious inasmuch as the petitioner, who had claimed weightage as per application form provided by the respondents, was entitled to his seat as per the result declared by the University appended as Annexure no.4 to the writ petition.

It also appears from para 14 of the writ petition that since the petitioner was entitled to weightage under both items 18(i) and 18(ii), he had rightly claimed weightage under the said two categories.

The petitioner has made the following prayers:-

(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioner to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) course in any college of the respondent University with free seat (non-payment) after giving due weightage to the petitioner as per law;  and/or

(b) to pass any other order or direction as may appear just in the facts of the case; and/or,

(c) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.

   This Court on 7.3.2006 had passed the following interim order:-

    " On 22.2.2006 time was accorded to Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate for obtaining necessary instruction in the matter.

 On matter being taken up today, he informs the court that no instruction had been received.

        In these circumstances, respondents are directed to provisionally admit the petitioner in B.Ed. course within one month from today or to show cause by filing counter affidavit before this Court.

  List after one month.

                                                                       Sd. Hon. V.K. Shukla,J.


The counsel for the respondents submits that under the rules CISF is not treated as a Police persons and thus his certificate under the category was found not correct which does not come under the category of approved certificate. He further submits that the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled on account of wrong claim under the certificate.

It is apparent from the application form that under item no. 18(i) CISF one of the category mentions whose sons/daughter/CDO are entitled to weightage of 15 marks as such no illegality has been committed by the petitioner by claiming 15 marks for this category. He has not secured the rank by concealment of any facts or by a fraud.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be considered for admission in B.Ed. course within a week from today in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.

Dated 17.7.2006





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.