Disposed

Suman Kumari v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2019WRIC/36404/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner complained that her examination result for a Diploma in Elementary Education course was not declared despite requesting the Exam Regulatory Authority. The High Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh representation with directions for a reasoned decision within one month.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a fresh representation within one week; respondent to decide with hearing within one month.

Suman Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36404 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Suman Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam,Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimla Prasad, learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The petitioner has taken admission in the course namely Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) (Batch 2017) from the institution namely Saraswati Devi Vidya Mandir Kishni Mainpuri. The petitioner has appeared in a IIIrd Semester examination of D.El. Ed. course but her result has not been declared. The Principal of the institution has written a letter on 1.11.2019 to the Secretary, Exam Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj- respondent no. 3 to declare the result of the petitioner, but despite the request having been made by the Principal of the institution, the respondent no. 3 has not declared the result of the petitioner till date. The petitioner has also submitted a representation to the respondent no. 2- Director, Basic Education, U.P. Government Lucknow on 5.11.2019 by registered post.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that she has appeared in the IIIrd Semester examination of D.El.Ed. course which is evident from the letter of the Principal of the institution, her result has not been declared and no attention has been paid by the authorities to the representation of the petitioner for declaring her result.

¶8

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contends that it is not manifest from the record as to when the representation of the petitioner has been received in the office of the respondent no. 3. He submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction be issued to respondent no. 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation raising all her grievances before the respondent no. 3 within a period of one week from today.

¶10

In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 shall consider the same and decide it by reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed off subject to above observations. Order Date :- 15.11.2019 Ishan

Suman Kumari v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumari v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Kumari and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Gorang Tyagi Vs Swami Vivekanand Subharti University Meerut and 2 Others

Siddharth Yadaw Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Shaheed Mangal Pandey Inter College and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

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

Krishna Kant Pathak Vs State of U P and 4 Others