Allowed

Nishkam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018WRIC/23497/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the respondent authorities to scrutinize the petitioner's answer sheet for 'Community Medicine - paper IInd' and correct the marks in the award list to prevent the petitioner from appearing in the final year examination. The court directed the respondent to conduct the scrutiny within three days of receiving the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to conduct scrutiny of copy of 'Community Medicine paper IInd' and correct/allot marks within three days of receipt of certified copy.

Nishkam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23497 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nishkam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

¶6

"(a) to issue order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to conduct the scrutiny of copy of ' Community Medicine- paper IInd ' of the petitioner bearing paper code MBBS 302 within the stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶7

(b) to issue order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to allot the marks in award list according to the marks awarded in answer sheet of ' Community Medicine - Part IInd paper' of the petitioner bearing paper code MBBS 302."

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the averments made in para 13 of the writ petition, submitted that immediately after declaration of result of his examination of MBBS final part-I for the sessions 2017-18 the petitioner applied for scrutiny of his marks awarded in the aforementioned subject on line and also made an application on 23.6.2018 before the respondent no. 3 that his examination is going to start from 3rd July, 2018 as such his

¶9

result for scrutiny may be declared so that he may appear in the examination of M.B.B.S. final part - II and his career may not be ruined .He further submits that the date of examination has been postponed and now the examination is going to start from 24.7.2018 and if the scrutiny of copy is not done before that date and his marks are not corrected ,the petitioner will not be allowed to appear in Final Year Part II Examination and his educational career will spoil.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner , Mr. Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the University and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the urgency involved in the matter, We dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to conduct scrutiny of copy of ' Community Medicinepaper IInd ' of the petitioner bearing paper code MBBS 302 and correct/allot the marks in award list accordingly as per the marks awarded in the answer sheet within three days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today .

¶13

Order Date :- 17.7.2018

¶14

MLK

Nishkam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishkam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Yatendra Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Manager Indian Overseas Bank

Ashok and 2 Others Vs Additional District Magistrate and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brij Kishor Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S B.N. Traders Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another