Allowed

Vandana Dwivedi v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021WRIA/1502/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the declaration of her U.P.T.E.T. 2019 result as 'Invalid Series'. The Court, noting no need for pleadings, remitted the matter to the Examination Regulatory Authority to decide the petitioner's representation by a speaking order within six weeks via a mandamus order.

What did the court decide?

Crafted a mandamus requiring the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., to decide the petitioner's representation by a speaking order within six weeks from the date of download of the judg

Vandana Dwivedi Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1502 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Vandana Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Yadav,Arvind Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petitioner claims that she had appeared in the U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2019. Her registration number was 1916278152, while her Roll number was 431160048588. The answerbook series allotted to the petitioner was "Series C" bearing number 626960. The result of the petitioner has been declared by the respondents records under the heading Result Status "Invalid Series". The petitioner has made an application in this regard to correct the aforesaid anomaly and declare her result.

¶6

The only prayer made by Shri Virendra Pratap, learned holding brief of Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is that representation of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the issues raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and have to be determined in the first instance by the competent authority. He, however, fairly submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the representation of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.

¶8

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With

¶9

the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶10

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3- Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj.

¶11

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 3- Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj, to execute the following direction:

¶12

The respondent no. 3- Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj, shall decide the representation of the petitioner, by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶13

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Dhananjai

Vandana Dwivedi v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Dwivedi v. State of U P and 2 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

Syeda Rukhsar Mariyam Rizvi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramnaresh Singh Chandel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajoo Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others