Disposed

Renu v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024WRIC/13498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner whose Intermediate Examination 2014 result was cancelled as an unfair-means case without notice sought quashing of the cancellation and declaration of her result. The court found no evidence she had been put to notice and disposed of the petition directing the Board Secretary to hear her and take a reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions: petitioner to file application within 15 days; Board Secretary to fix hearing in third week of August 2024, issue notice to respondent 4, and pass reasoned speaking

Renu vs State of Up and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113970

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13498 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Renu Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi,Vineet Singh Parmar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶8

This Court by virtue of the order dated 30.04.2024 entertained the writ petition while issuing notice to the Principal, S.D. Inter College, Nakur, Saharanpur. There is an office report dated 06.05.2024 that the writ petitioner had taken the steps. Thereafter on 16.05.2024, this Court required the respondents herein to file a counter affidavit. Orders have also been passed on 29.05.2024 and lastly on 03.07.2024, the Court issued fresh notices upon the fourth respondent. An office report dated 16.07.2024 depicts that in compliance of the said order, the writ petitioner has taken steps, however, as per India Post Track Consignment Website 'Item Delivered to the addressee'.

¶9

Since service has been effected upon the fourth respondent and when the matter has been taken up, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent, thus in view of the said fact, the Court is deeming sufficient the service upon the fourth respondent and proceeding in the matter.

¶10

A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi and the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that they do not propose to file any additional

¶11

affidavit and the writ petition may be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

¶12

In view of the said statement, the Court is proceeding to decide the matter at the fresh stage.

¶13

The case of the writ petitioner is that she, Renu, is the daughter of one Indrapal, resident of village Bidvi, Post Alipura, District Saharanpur. The writ petitioner claims to have appeared as a regular student in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education in the year 2014. The writ petitioner further claims to have been admitted as a regular student in the fourth respondent - Institution, S.D. Inter College, Nakur, Saharanpur and was assigned Roll No.0578498. As per the writ petitioner, though she had fared well in the written examination, but when the result was published on 25.05.2014, then her result was withheld as a suspected case of resorting to unfair means and she was issued a provisional marksheet showing that her intermediate examination has been withheld.

¶14

According to the writ petitioner, she took admission in B.Sc. as a regular student and she appeared in the basic examination in 2nd division and a statement of marks of B.Sc. (Regular) Final Examination-2017 was also issued in this regard by Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.

¶15

The writ petitioner further claims to have obtained admission in M.Sc. as a regular student and she passed the M.Sc. examination from the same university in the year 2019 and thereafter the writ petitioner further claims to have pursued B.Ed. examination and qualified the same from U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET).

¶16

2 of 8

¶17

The writ petitioner with regard to the withholding of the results referable to the Intermediate Examination conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education from the fourth respondentInstitution, thereafter preferred an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information.

¶18

Information is stated to have been supplied to the writ petitioner under the signatures of Deputy Secretary / Public Information Officer of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh on 21.09.2023, wherein in point no.1 with relation to the question so put up by the writ petitioner, it was recited that the result of the writ petitioner for the intermediate examination bearing no.0578498 was kept in W-Pass category and further pursuant to the convening of the meeting of the Committee, her result has been cancelled.

¶19

Aggrieved against the aforesaid action taken by the respondent, which according to the writ petitioner is in violation of the principle of the natural justice and also detrimental to her academic career, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶20

" A. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the undated letter issued by the Regional Secretary, Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, Regional Officer Meerut (Annexure Nno.1 to the writ petition).

¶21

B. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 and 3 to respondent No.2 and 3 to declare the Petitioner as Passed in the Intermediate Examination of the year 2014 conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education from S.D. Inter College, Nakur, district Saharanpur bearing Roll Number 0578498.

¶22

C. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶23

D. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. "

¶24

This Court on 30.04.2024 entertained the writ petition and proceeded to pass the series of orders. For the reference the orders passed by this Court and the office report are being quoted hereinunder:-

¶25

3 of 8

¶26

" 30.04.2024

¶27

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶28

2. Issue notice to Respondent No. 4.

¶29

3. Office is directed to provide 'dasti' to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for service on Respondent No. 4.

¶30

4. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that she appeared in the Intermediate Examination, 2014 and she was issued a provisional marksheet. In the mark-sheet, an endorsement has been made "W-Pass".

¶31

5. It has further been contended that petitioner, on the basis of aforesaid mark-sheet, continued to pursue her higher studies and she has passed out B.Sc., M.Sc. and B.Ed. examinations and she has also qualified T.E.T. and C.T.E.T. examinations.

¶32

6. Petitioner, when applied under Right To Information Act, 2005, then she has been given information in the year 2023 that her result has been cancelled way back in the year 2014.

¶33

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that entire exercise of cancellation of petitioner's result has been done ex-parte, as at no point of time, petitioner has ever been afforded any opportunity of hearing before cancellation of her result of the Intermediation Examination, 2014.

¶34

8. Put up this case on 16.05.2024 as fresh to enable learned Standing Counsel to take categorical instructions, particularly on the point, as to whether before cancelling petitioner's result, she has ever been afforded opportunity of hearing.

¶35

16.05.2024

¶36

1. In compliance of this court's order dated 30.4.2024, learned Standing Counsel has received instructions from Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Meerut vide his letter dated 14.5.2024.

¶37

2. Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a week.

¶38

3. List this matter on 29.5.2024 as fresh.

¶39

4. It is made clear that since the issue involved in this writ petition relates to cancellation of the result and learned Standing Counsel has already received instructions in this matter therefore, no further time shall be granted for filing counter affidavit.

¶40

29.05.2024

¶41

1. Counter-Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3 is taken on record.

¶42

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for a week's time to file Rejoinder-Affidavit.

¶43

3. Time prayed for, is allowed.

¶44

4. Put up this case on 03.07.2024 as fresh.

¶45

4 of 8

¶46

03.07.2024

¶47

1. This Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 directed to the office to provide dasti notices to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for service on respondent no.4.

¶48

2. In compliance of the said order, the notices were received for the said service by learned counsel for the petitioner on 06.05.2024. There is nothing on record to show that the notices have been served upon the respondent no.4.

¶49

3. In the interest of justice, let a fresh notice be served upon the respondent no.4 at an early date.

¶50

4. Steps be taken within 3 days.

¶51

5. Put up as fresh on 18.07.2024.

¶52

6. In the meanwhile, petitioner if, so desires may file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

¶53

Office Report dated 16.7.24

¶54

In compliance of Hon’ble Court’s order dated 30/4/24 notice was issued on 6/5/24 through RPAD to Respondent No.(4).

¶55

As per India Post Track Consignment Website ‘Item delivered to addressee ’"

¶56

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second and the third respondent dated 18.05.2024 sworn by the Assistant Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office Meerut. As noticed above, a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that he does not intend to file any response, thus this Court is taking the matter and deciding the same at the fresh stage.

¶57

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the entire stand taken by the respondents either in the information supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or in the counter affidavit is in violation of principles of natural justice, as a unilateral decision has been taken without putting the writ petitioner to notice. He further submits that in case, the fourth respondent, Principal, S.D. Inter College, Nakur, Saharanpur, was not cooperating in the matter or any inputs were provided, which were detrimental, then too the principles

¶58

5 of 8

¶59

of natural justice stood intervened, and the writ petitioner of course ought to have been put to notice to clarify his stand that he had not resorted to any unfair means and there is no question for cancelling the results. He further submits that the writ petitioner on the strength of the marksheet of the year 2014 has even in fact climbed the ladder while pursuing the further studies and at this juncture in case, this Court does not intervene, then it will create a situation whereby the entire academic of the writ petitioner will be kept in jeopardy.

¶60

The learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the document as appended with the counter affidavit as well as with the writ petition itself explicitly show that the writ petitioner has been indulged in unfair means and that is why the writ petitioner has to face the music in this regard. According to the Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that even in fact, the inputs were also obtained, which clearly shows that the writ petitioner was indulged in unfair means.

¶61

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶62

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has appeared in the Intermediate Examination in the year 2014. It is further not in dispute that in the year 2014, a communication is stated to have been issued on 13.02.2014 under the signatures of the third respondent, Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office Meerut addressed to the fourth respondent, Principal of the Institution in question, whereby the Roll Number of the writ petitioner being 578498 and the results were cancelled.

¶63

In the counter affidavit, it has also come on record in para-2C that the result of the writ petitioner was withheld under the W-Pass category and on 07.07.2014, a communication was issued to the fourth

¶64

6 of 8

¶65

respondent Institution for providing the documents relating to the ineligible students of the aforesaid Institution. In para-2-D, it is also asserted that the fourth respondent Institution issued a letter, according to which it depicted that the Principal of the Institution had not appeared in the inquiry.

¶66

This Court made a repeated specific query to the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as to whether the writ petitioner was put to notice or not to which the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel submits that from the counter affidavit as well as the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is not forthcoming that the writ petitioner was put to notice.

¶67

In the opinion of the Court, once certain adverse inputs are being sought to be injected with regard to holding the writ petitioner to have committed an act of resorting to unfair means and the writ petitioner on the basis of the provisional marksheet had pursued further qualification, then at least propriety demands that the writ petitioner ought to have been put to notice. Interestingly, in the case in hand, the entire exercise has been conducted way back in the year 2014 and we are in the year 2024. Further as per the own saying of the writ petitioner, by virtue of information under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 21.09.2023, Deputy Secretary/ Public Information Officer, in the office of Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad has informed the writ petitioner that his result has been cancelled, thus in the fitness of the matter and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, that the writ petitioner had taken admission referable to the further courses, the writ petitioner be put to notice in this regard.

¶68

At this juncture, Sri Jitendra Singh, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel submits that the second respondent, Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad/Prayagraj shall take a decision after

¶69

7 of 8

¶70

putting to notice the writ petitioner and after going through the entire document and furnishing the complete documents, without any further delay.

¶71

Considering the submissions of the rival parties and the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of as under: -

¶72

A. The writ petitioner shall file an application along with the selfattested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order within a period of 15 days from today by 05.08.2024.

¶73

B. On the receipt of the same, the second respondent, the second respondent, Secretary, Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad/ Prayagraj shall put to the writ petitioner on notice by fixing a date in the third week of August, 2024.

¶74

C. On that date, the writ petitioner shall appear before the Respondent no.2 giving details of the documents, which he seeks to be furnished to him.

¶75

D. In sequal to the same, a notice be also issued to the fourth respondent to furnish the entire document and after exchange of the documents, a date shall be fixed and a decision be taken by 30.08.2024.

¶76

E. The second respondent before taking a decision, shall undertake an arduous task for examining each and every record and also the fact as to it was possible to obtain further admissions in higher courses on the basis of the provisional marksheet, when the results were said to have been withheld and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

¶77

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶78

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 N.S.Rathour

¶79

(Vikas Budhwar,J)

¶80

8 of 8

¶81

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Renu v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Christian Hospital School of Nursing vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ramesh Chauhan and 3 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Mumtaj Ahmad Ansari vs Nagar Panchayat Katra Distt. Gonda Thru. Its Executive Officer and 2 Others

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Another

Achchhe Lal and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Azamgarh and 9 Others

Munna Lal vs State of Up and 3 Others