Dismissed

Nishi Mishra v. the Vice Chancellor of the Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIC/7722/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging denial of opportunity to appear in back paper examination for B.Ed. First Year due to missed exam. Court upheld University Regulations limiting one repeater chance and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to permit petitioner to appear in back paper examination and provide qualifying marks was dismissed.

Nishi Mishra vs the Vice Chancellor of the Dr… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111895

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7722 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nishi Mishra

¶5

Respondent :- The Vice Chancellor Of The Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Kumar Upadhyay,Raj Kumar Upadhyay,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Shambhavi Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shambhavi Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

¶9

"(i) To issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for appearing at the Back Paper Examination of the B.Ed. First Year Examination of 2023 so that her brightful future as well as the complete three year period of time might be secured in accordance with law.

¶10

(ii) To issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the minimum qualifying marks in the first paper examination of B.Ed. 2023, wherein it is shown as MW (Marks Waiting), so that she might be able to be appeared 2 year B.Ed. Examination, 2024.

¶11

(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the present case of the petitioner so that justice be done with the petitioner.

¶12

(iv) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pleadings have already been exchanged in the present

¶14

petition.The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been deprived of her right to appear for the back paper examination of the B.Ed. First Year Examination of 2023. He further submits that the petitioner could not appear in the B.Ed. First Year Examination for the session 2021-2022, on account of being injured badly in the sudden accident occurred on 23.08.2022. She was hospitalized for medical treatment completed and and had to undergone for her better treatment for the period of six months.

¶15

Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner again applied for examination form for permitting her to appear in the re-examination of B.Ed. Part-I^st . Although she was issued an admit card for B.Ed. Part-1st on 16.08.2023 and the said examination commenced from 18.08.2023 but on that date she could not appear in the examination as she reached the examination centre at 11:20 a.m. while the examination was scheduled from 10 o'clock.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2- University submits that the petitioner is not entitled to appear in the first paper of the B.Ed. Examination 2023 that was commenced on 18.08.2023. Since she did not appear in that exam which was scheduled on 18.08.2023, therefore, her marks in the marksheet, as annexed in annexure no.3 to the writ petition, are shown as MW (Marks Waiting). That is why the marks of the petitioner in the paper BD 105 reflects as marks MW (Marks Waiting).

¶17

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the 'marks waiting' signifies the papers of the aforesaid subject have not been provided by the College to the University. It is further submitted that since the petitioner represented the matter to the

¶18

authorities stating that she had appeared in the paper BD 105 i.e 'Understanding Discipline & School Subjects', her marks have been incorporated and she has been granted 21 marks in the same. That after incorporating the marks in the subject of 'Understanding Discipline & School Subjects', the petitioner has still been declared as fail because she did not appear in the first paper of 'Child and Gorwing-up'.

¶19

Further, submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the relief claimed by the petitioner at this stage with respect to the prayer to appear in the back paper examination of the B.Ed. course, cannot be granted because as per the Rules and the Ordinances of the University, once the student has appeared in the examination as an ex-student, no further opportunity for appearing in the re-examination can be granted. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent that the maximum duration to complete the B.Ed. course is three years. As such, she cannot be allowed to appear in the re-examination. The Ordinances & Rules/ Regulations of the Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, provides that each student will get only one chance as a repeater for respective year.

¶20

Taking into consideration the aforesaid Rules, this Court finds force in the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

9.This Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶22

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Abhishek Gupta

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nishi Mishra v. the Vice Chancellor of the Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishi Mishra v. the Vice Chancellor of the Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar University and Another

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

Satish Prajapati Minor vs Director of Education Madhyamik and Chairman at Lucknow and 3 Others

K.R.S. Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Narendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Sone Lal Patel Public School and Another vs Central Board of Secondary Education Shiksha KENDRA-2 through Its Secretary and 3 Others

Committee of Management Indira Gandhi Intermediate College and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

Srikant Yadav vs State of Up and 9 Others

Yasbeen Bano vs Vice Chancellor Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith and 3 Others