Prakharaditya Dwivedi Vs Honble Visitor, Sgpgims Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38263

Court No. - 20

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3887 of 2024

Petitioner :- Prakharaditya Dwivedi Respondent :- Honble Visitor, Sgpgims Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vatsala Singh,Himanshu Singh,Vivek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Saxena,Shubham Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinayak Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow.

¶7

Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs :-

¶8

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sanjay Gandhi peat Graduate institute of Medical Sciences Ralbarell Road Lucknow, to opposite party number 2 to take action in accordance with law and as direction contained in the order dated 02.01.2024 Passed by the Hon'ble Visitor, as is contained in an Annexure number 1 to this well petition.

¶9

II. To Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 2 to 4 to upload the question paper with reason for awarding of such marks justifying each question, on the website or to be made available to the petitioner personally in physical form, so that the petitioner may have the fair opportunity to submit his objection against the marks allotted to him.

¶10

III. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences to get the answer of the petitioner re- evaluated and to award him proper marks and declare result entirely, to take appropriate action as for the marks to be awarded to the petitioner after reevaluation.

¶11

IV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this honourable court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though there is a provision for filing objections, but, the said opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. She further added that the question paper was not provided to the

¶13

petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not file objections. She next added that the petitioner has sent a letter to the Visitor, that too, was addressed to the S.G.P.G.I. administration, but, no action has been taken as yet

¶14

On the other hand, Sri Shubham Tripthi,learned counsel appearing for the respondent institute submits that the selection process is over and out of 20 vacancies, 3 incumbents have been selected and except apart that no one was found obtaining more than 50% of marks. He further added that admittedly, there is a provision of filing objection and it was filed by the petitioner whiling seeking copy of the question paper. He next added that the posts have further been advertised and therefore, the petitioner has all opportunity to appear in the same.

¶15

Considering upon the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation before the competent authority, while raising all his grievance within a period of 15 days from today, and if such representation is moved, the competent authority is hereby directed to consider and decide the same within further period of three weeks.

¶16

It is clarified that this court has not entered into the merits of the case and so far as the further advertisement of the vacancies are concerned, this order would have no bearing effect on the same.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.5.2024 AKS

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prakharaditya Dwivedi v. Honble Visitor, Sgpgims Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakharaditya Dwivedi v. Honble Visitor, Sgpgims Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs U.P Coop Tribunal Thru Chairman Lko and Ors.

C/M Hanuman Prasad Rastogi Girls Inter College Thru Manager Vs State of U.P Thru Principal Secy Secondary Edu Lko and Ors.

Navneet Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. and

C/M Sri Saraswati Sanskrit Pathshala Thru Its Manager Sushee Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Edu.Civil Sectt.and Ors.

Ram Krishna Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others