Petitioner sought admission in D.El.Ed. but due to erroneous submission of documents to an expired clerk, his enrollment was invalid. Court issued writ of mandamus directed respondent to decide representation within one month.
Writ of mandamus issued directing respondent to decide petitioner's representation within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2717 of 2019
Petitioner :- Devendra Pal Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was admitted in the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) Training, 2018 at District Institute of Education and Training, Mathura. Due to inadvertence, the petitioner submitted his academic testimonials before the Head Clerk of the Institution, during the process of verification of the academic testimonials. The Head Clerk expired on 17.09.2018, without intimating the authorities about the receipt of documents from the petitioner.
Consequently, the name of the petitioner could not be uploaded and his enrolment was not treated as a valid admission to the said course.
Learned counsel for the petitioner calls attention to the communication sent by the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training to the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj, in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has made a representation before the respondent no. 2, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj for being admitted to the institution and to permit him to pursue the D.El.Ed. course.
The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav that the representation of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.
Learned Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the decision on the recommendation. He, however, contends that the decision can only come after due verification of facts by the competent authority.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj.
A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 2, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj to
decide the representation of the petitioner and also consider the recommendation made by respondent no. 3 in this regard. The representation of the petitioner shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition nor has the claim of the petitioner been judged on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Dhananjai
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority should decide the petitioner's representation regarding delayed admission in D.El.Ed. course.
Whether the petitioner's claim regarding inadvertent document submission should be adjudicated by the court or the competent authority.
What procedural direction should be issued to the respondent authority regarding the timeline for decision.
Devendra Pal
State Of U P
Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
