Dismissed

Dhananaja Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2007WP/7065/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by students alleging denial of right to appear in the second semester examination. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the students failed the first-year examination and the relevant document did not confer a right to skip that examination. The case is disposed of in the order itself.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. The case is disposed of on 02.02.2007.

Dhananaja Kumar Sahu and Ors. Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

.<' "^ ~>1 :i

¶2

C.^2^°^--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF .TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶4

¶5

W.RNO. ......^0.^: 2006

¶6

•^A. Petitioner Dhananjay Kumar Sahu S/o. Shri Uday Ram Sahu Age about 24yrs. R/o - Adarsh Nagar, Durg,

¶7

Dist - Durg (C.G.)

¶8

/^.
/cf/.. 2.
^..-y .-••"''
'°y s,?.' ,-•'
.c^/yv
/twy
/w
^'
<- ^
Respondents- 1.
2.
^ ^^t^
•^ G-
3.
,,^S^^:£s^i^
^A>-^f^Q r4~S%.^%. ^ii.
S'f: "-';^ .' a.K.'"«3i!el :-;!ARY '-''^
4.
" •M 3ms (C.S.S Se«.
h''?A ''.Ka.c.c.liSfiy/,;.'
VS:f:^S:/
'<^•<s OF ^^
^^•I&*"-"

¶9

Balram Kumar Rathore S/o. - Shri Avadh Ram

¶10

Age about 24yrs. R/o.-Subhash Nagar, Durg,

¶11

Dist-Durg (C.G.)

¶12

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh

¶14

Through-Secretary

¶15

Dipt. ofAgriculture, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

Registrar-

¶17

Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Raipur

¶18

Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

Vice Chancellor

¶20

Indira Gandhi Agriculture University Raipur

¶21

Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶22

Dean

¶23

Bhartiya College ofAgriculture & Agriculture Engneering

¶24

Pulgaon Bypass Road, Durg, Dist-Durg(C.G-)

Cont.... 2

'\ /

.'T-

•• 7 •• •• ^i^ • •

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF CONSTJTUTLONQF INDIA.

¶30

XI-HC-22

¶31

3;^'"41'!<lcf<<, »Tf1'H'l<S, [sK-ll+iy

¶32

¶33

. ^ f' ^a.70^/ ITTIICTT g;*nsR"^"""""""""" wr^'200

¶34

sn^r^r R-fi+an^T »*liu(8tl	R<><' 311^1 ^WIWHf?(T	" <fti<itci41-i HiiciT^'teI^<Rit<;i< ^sri^iTsn^r
	02.02.2007 Shri Santosh Sahu, counsel 5hri Utkarsh Verma, Dy ^ No.l/State.	jFor the petitioners. oyernment Advocate for respondent
	Shri BD fiuru, counsel for r^ None for respondent No.4. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner's are not entitfed to Ith En9ineeriry) 4 year 1 Semester Chancellor in the yeor 2004 os a petitionforrelief ptacing their r'eli From bare readin9 of Ai students ofsecond year, who faile(	spondents No.2 & 3. ^ippear in the B Tech (Agricultural petitioners frankly concedes that examination, but have instituted this
	Ther-efore, the petition is liable accordin9ly dismissed. course. Annexure P/5 in no way c claim their appearance in the -	^nfer-s any right on the petitioners to ^ year 1 Semester examination. to be dismissed sufflmwily and is
padma	In the iight of cfooye 4 No.11631/2006 stand disposed of.	der, M.(W.)P.No.4986/2006 & IA /N; „..__-^-^ Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (<ft^^^)

Dhananaja Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananaja Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

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

Smt.Manmati Vs Sub-Divisional Officer and Ors.

Raipur Development Authority and Ors. Vs Abdul Majid and Another

The Comm. of C.T., Indore Vs M/S Raj Pipe

Gyan Prasad Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.and Ors.

Subedar Patel and Others Vs Suresh Kumar Sen and Others

Sudha Devi Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.