Disposed

Kumari Gaytri v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Feb 2021WPC/33/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought original B.Ed. certificate issued provisionally in 2013. Court noted university claimed lack of NCTE recognition. Petitioner filed RTI review. Court refused to decide merits, granting liberty to prefer fresh representation with mandatory determination within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to prefer fresh representation; respondent directed to decide within two months after providing hearing.

Kumari Gaytri Vs State of Jharkhand — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 33 of 2021

Kumari Gaytri

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Vice-Chancellor, Sido-Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka

¶9

The Examination Controller, Sido-Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka

¶10

The Principal, Ramadevi Bajla Mahila Mahavidyalay, Deoghar 5. The Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, Bhubaneshwar … … Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Kishore Kr Singh, SC-VI For the Respondent Nos. 2&3 : Mr. Akashdeep, AC to Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate -----

¶13

Order No. 03

¶14

Dated: 04.02.2021

¶15

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 – the Vice-Chancellor, Sido-Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka to issue original certificate for Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) course successfully completed by the petitioner by passing the said course for the Session 2011-12.

¶17

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken admission for B.Ed. course in Ramadevi Bajla Mahila Mahavidyalay, Deoghar under Sido-Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka for the Session 2011-12. After passing the said course, she was issued the provisional certificate by the said University on 20.06.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). However, thereafter she was not issued the original certificate for the said course which compelled the petitioner to seek information from the said college under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The required information was furnished to her by the Public Information Officer of the said college on 26.08.2015 stating that the Vice-Chancellor of the said University had ordered for initiating the B.Ed. course in the said college for the Session 2011-12, however, the recognition of B.Ed.

¶18

¶19

course initiated for the Session 2011-12 was not obtained from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has represented various authorities raising her grievance, however, none of them have responded till date. It is also submitted that considering the prayer of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 may be directed to decide her representation.

¶20

3. Mr. Akashdeep, AC to Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that no such representation has been preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2. However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the said respondent, an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law will be taken.

¶21

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 2 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall take an appropriate informed decision in this regard within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶22

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Manish

Kumari Gaytri v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Gaytri v. State of Jharkhand

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

Similar cases

Kali Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Karmu Ram Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ms Kamalalaya Colour Lab Studio through Its Authorised Signatory Cum Manager Sri Subhendu Neogi Vs State Bank of India through Assistant General Manager Stressed Assets Management Branch

S G Projects Ltd. through Its Director Ajay Singh Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Smt Rajni Kaur Vs State of Jharkhand

Dr Sriram Pratap Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand