Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KM. MINAKSHI PANDEY versus THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Km. Minakshi Pandey v. The Vice Chancellor University Of Allahabad & Others - WRIT - C No. 64011 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 12557 (31 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

The petitioner initially approached this Court for quashing the notice-dated 26.4.2006, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner who appeared in B.A. Part III Examination was caught by the University authorities using unfair means. As such a show cause notice was given. The petitioner challenged the said order and by order dated 30.9.2005. This Court has directed the University authority to permit the petitioner to appear in B.A. Part III examination of 2006. The petitioner submits that on the basis of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner appeared in B.A. Part-III examination of 2006 but the result of the same has not been declared.

Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the University has filed a counter affidavit annexing a copy of the order dated 21.7.2005 by which the examination of the petitioner of B.A. Part-III 2005 has been cancelled and the petitioner has also been debarred for a period of another year 2006 from appearing in the examination. Sri P.S. Baghel has also produced the relevant record relating to the examination of 2005 of the petitioner in Sanskrit Subject. The Court has also perused the same.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. From the record it appears that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner in the examination hall and the petitioner has submitted a reply but the order dated 21.7.2005 canceling the B.A. Part-III examination of 2005 has never been communicated to the petitioner. The said order has been annexed with the counter affidavit. The petitioner specifically stated that the order dated 21.7.2005 has never been communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner has come to know when the same has been filed with the counter affidavit. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that on the basis of the order dated 30.9.2005 the petitioner has appeared in B.A. Part-III examination of 2006, which was held by the Allahabad University. But on the basis of the order dated 21.7.2005 the result of the petitioner has not been declared.

It is apparent from the record that if the order dated 21.7.2005 was passed why this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent who was present on 30.9.2006 when the order permitting the petitioner in the B.A. Part-III Examination of 2006 was passed. This clearly gives an impression to the Court that the order-dated 21.7.2005 was never communicated to the petitioner. It is settled that if the administrative authority passes an order and it is not communicated and that is being kept in their file, the presumption will be that no order is in existence and the controversy has not been decided.

But taking the lenient view seeing the career of the petitioner and as by virtue of the order of this Court dated 30.9.2005 the petitioner has already appeared in B.A. part-III examination 2006 which has already been held by the University but the result has not been declared, in such circumstances without expressing any opinion on merit, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.2 to declare the result of the petitioner of 2006 B.A. Part III examination within six weeks  and if the petitioner is declared passed, appropriate mark-sheet as well as the certificate be also issued in favour of the petitioner.  

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

31.7.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No.64011 of 2005


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.