Disposed¶7

Vinamra Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2025WRIC/9837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vinamra Mishra v. State of U.P.; WRIT-C No. 9837 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur J.; interim order dated 8.1.2025; theory 50% threshold; written paper 70 marks + sessional 30 marks; notification dated 16.05.2008, paragraphs 13, 13(3), 13(3)(ii), 14; sessional breakup 20 + 10 marks; attendance 80%; 1 out of 5 marks; Pharmacy Council of India marking pattern and guidelines; Clinical Pharmacokinetics & Pharmacotherapeutic Drug Monitoring; scores 30/70, 31/70 supplementary, 32/70 re-valuation; internal assessment copies; case listed 15.01.2025 at 02:15 PM.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vinamra Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9837 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinamra Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aishwarya Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

In pursuance of directions issued earlier, records have been produced by opposite parties no. 2 to 6. After examination, the said records are being returned.

¶6

Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 6 submits that earlier in the subject of Clinical Pharmacokinetics & Pharmacotherapeutic Drug Monitoring, petitioner obtained 30 out of 70 marks whereafter he gave a supplementary paper in which he obtained 31 out of 70 marks and in pursuance of directions issued by this Court, on re-valuation, his marks were indicated as 32 out of 70. The aforesaid record is being returned to learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 6.

¶7

Upon examination of submissions of learned counsel for parties, it appears that dispute is with regard to appreciation of paragraphs no. 13 and 14 of the notification dated 16.05.2008 brought on record is annexure no.1 to the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no. 2 to 6.

¶8

While learned counsel for petitioner submits that for the purposes of securing 50% marks in theory, the aggregate of marks obtained in written as well as sessional marks are required to be taken into account due to which the written paper would carry a total marks of 70 with 30 marks being allocated as sessional marks.

¶9

While learned counsel for opposite parties admits the aforesaid situation, upon instructions he submits that for the purposes of sessional marks, 20 marks are allocated for actual performance in the sessional examination while 10 marks are provided for day to day assessment in the practical class work, promptness, viva-voice record maintenance etc. including attendance and since petitioner had an attendance of only 80%, one out of 5 marks was awarded to him for such attendance in terms of guidelines issued by the Pharmacy Council of India.

¶10

In response thereto learned counsel for petitioner submits that

¶11

sessional marks as is being interpreted by opposite parties is in terms of paragraph 13(3) of the aforesaid notification which pertains only to practicals and is inapplicable in the case of theory marks due to which he should have been assessed for the entire 30 marks without the breakup indicated in paragraph 13 (3) (ii).

¶12

With regard to aforesaid submissions, list this case on 15.01.2025 at 02:15 PM in order to enable learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 6 to bring on record the marking pattern issued by the Pharmacy Council of India.

¶13

On the next date fixed, learned counsel for the said opposite parties shall also produce the internal assessment copies pertaining to petitioner.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Satish

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinamra Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinamra Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Dubey Vs Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Ayodhya and Others

Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi and Others

Ghufran Ahmad @ Gufran and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue), Lko. and Others

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Supply Lko. and 4 Others

Kalpana Yadav vs Pushpendra Kumar Yadav

Shashank Srivastava and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lko and Others