Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SUMAN OJHA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. HIGHER EDUCATION & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Suman Ojha v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Higher Education & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 56086 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 13360 (10 August 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

                                                                               Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56086 2004

Smt. Suman Ojha Vs.           State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner had appeared in the B.Ed. examination, 2000 conducted by the V.B.S. Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur. She was declared pass in Ist Division and the mark-sheet was issued to her on 24.11.2001. Thereafter she applied for her B.Ed. degree and in response, on 5.2.2002, she was issued a provisional certificate by the University. On the basis of the provisional certificate she was  selected for the B.T.C. course. She then again in 2004 applied to the University for her regular certificate-B.Ed. degree. In response, again on 9.6.2004, the University issued her a provisional certificate instead of the regular B.Ed. degree. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent-University time and again for issuance of her certificate-B.Ed. degree but since the University did not respond, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-University to issue her degree/certificate of the B.Ed. examination, 2000.

I have heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-University. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The sole ground for not issuing the certificate-B.Ed. degree to the petitioner, as disclosed in the counter affidavit, is that in the marks-sheet the petitioner was shown to have obtained 73 marks in the Paper "Shiksha Ke Darshnik Evam Samajshastriya Adhar" (Paper No. II), but according to the University there appeared to be some interpolation as the petitioner ought to have been awarded only 63 marks. It was for the first time in the counter affidavit that they disclosed that some enquiry in this regard was pending because of which her B.Ed. degree could not be issued.

On being directed by the Court for disclosing the result of the enquiry, the respondent-University filed a preliminary enquiry report dated 17.3.2005 alongwith a supplementary counter affidavit filed on 18.3.2005. All the papers which were called for by the enquiry officer were in 2005, which was after the filing of the writ petition. When the enquiry was directed has not been disclosed. In the said enquiry report the finding recorded is that some interpolation has been made by the University officials in  connivance with the petitioner. On a perusal of the said preliminary enquiry report, it is not understood as to what was the basis of arriving at such finding. Sri Ojha has made a statement at the Bar that no action has been taken against any of the officials who had been indicted in the said preliminary enquiry report. The University has not been able to satisfy this Court that why the certificate-B.Ed. degree was not issued to the petitioner immediately after her passing the examination, especially when the mark-sheet and provisional certificate had already been issued to her in the year 2001 and 2002. It is also not explained as to why the enquiry was ordered so late and the preliminary report given after 4 years of the examination, only when this Court directed to report the progress of enquiry.  If there was any enquiry contemplated, it should have done before the issuance of the mark-sheet.

Further, it is not even the case of the University that any notice of enquiry was ever given to the petitioner. In case if the marks of the petitioner were to be reduced as a consequence of any enquiry, the principles of natural justice require that the petitioner ought to have been given notice of such enquiry. In the present case, withholding the issuance of certificate-B.Ed. degree to the petitioner cannot be justified, especially after the petitioner having been declared duly pass in Ist Division and the mark-sheet as well as the provisional certificate having been already issued to her. This high handedness of the respondent-University is deprecated. The University is expected to act fairly and not harass the students and refuse to issue regular degrees to them for several years, even after having issued the mark-sheet and the provisional certificate.

In the above facts, since the respondent-authorities have not been able to give any valid reason for not having issued the B.Ed. degree to the petitioner to which she would be legally entitled to, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondents no. 2 and 4, the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the Veer Bahadur Singh Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur to provide the petitioner her certificate-B.Ed. degree, 2000 regarding which mark-sheet was issued to her on 24.11.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the provisional certificate issued to her on 5.2.2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost, which this Court assesses at Rs.5,000/-. The same shall be paid to the petitioner alongwith her certificate-B.Ed. degree within 15 days, failing which the petitioner may approach the District Magistrate, Jaunpur for recovering the same from the respondent-University as arrears of land revenue.

Dt/-10.8.2006

PS

               


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.