Dismissed

Jagran Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2022WPC/4120/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his failure in a 2008 Teachers Training Examination, claiming wrongful marking as absent despite alleged appearance. The Court dismissed the writ, finding the dispute involved complex factual questions unsuitable for writ jurisdiction and the petition was filed four years after notice, warranting dismissal due to delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for revision and republication of examination result was dismissed.

Jagran Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4120 of 2012

¶2

----

¶3

Jagran Lohra son of Shri Jitu Lohra, resident of Silli, P.O. and P.S. Silli, District Ranchi; at present residing at C/o Devendra Lohra, Quarter No.T/29/Ice Plant, Namkum P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Director, Human Resources Development Department, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

¶7

Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary, Gyandeep Bhawan, Bargawan Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 3. Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Gamharia, Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶8

District Education Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan, P.O. and District Seraikella-Kharsawan. … Respondents

¶9

----

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shree Krishna Pandey, Advocate For the State: Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. III Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate

¶13

¶14

6/ 04.03.2022 In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to revise and publish the result of Teachers Training held in the month of April, 2008, after properly evaluating the petitioner’s marks as he has been wrongly shown as absent in the external examination.

¶15

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in Teachers’ Training Examination of 2008, which was held in the month of April, 2008 and was present in all the theory and practical internal and external exams. It is his case that he got 66.1% in theory and 74% in practical examinations of Papers V, VI, VII, VIII and IX, but, he was wrongly shown as absent in the external examination and, thus, he was failed. It is his contention that since he has appeared in all the exams and was not absent and it is an error which need to be rectified and proper result needs to be prepared.

¶17

4. It is the case of the State that the petitioner though appeared in some of the examination, but, in the external practical examination, after signing the attendance sheet, he left the examination centre, but did not return.

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

Since the petitioner did not return to give his exams, he was declared absent and he was failed.

¶20

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the contention of the State is absolutely false and erroneous. He submits that the attendance register would show that he has signed the register, which means that he has appeared in the exams, but for the reasons best known, he has been failed. He is a meritorious candidate and secured 66.1% in theory exams and 74% in practical exams and it is absolutely a malafide act on the part of the respondents to declare him as failed, showing him absent.

¶21

6. Counsel for the State submits that on grievance of the petitioner, a Committee was constituted to inquire into and the committee inquired into and submitted a report mentioning that the petitioner did not appear in the practical examinations and was absent, thus, he was declared failed.

¶22

7. After hearing the parties, I find that dispute is in very narrow compass. Petitioner submits that he has appeared in all the examinations and his signature in attendance sheets would justify his claim. He submits that by no stretch of imagination petitioner can be marked as absent when he has appeared in examinations. Annexure 1 is the result, which was published. Result was published on 23^rd July, 2008. There were theoretical papers and practical subjects in the examinations, wherein candidate had to appear. Petitioner appeared in theoretical examinations, which is apparent from the marks obtained. So far as practical examination is concerned, he was shown absent and failed in external evaluation of Paper V, he was shown absent, in external evaluation of Paper VI he was shown absent, in external evaluation of Paper VII he was shown absent, in external evaluation of Paper VIII he was shown absent and lastly he was shown absent in external evaluation of Paper IX. From the aforesaid marks sheet, it is quite clear that he did not appear in external evaluation of practical subjects and thus, he was declared failed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, a specific stand has been taken that the petitioner marked his attendance and left the room for a short time, but did not return again in the external examination, hence, he was marked absent. It has been mentioned that a Committee was constituted, which submitted a report vouching the aforesaid fact. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 7 and 8 of counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, which reads as under:-

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

7. That with regard to the statement made in para 7 to para 10 of the writ petition it is most humbly and respectfully stated and submitted that the answering respondent along with the then District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur was deputed by the Jharkhand Academic Council for taking the Practical “External Examination”. During the course of practical External Examination, the petitioner has marked his signature on the attendance sheet and left the room for short time out but did not turned up again in every practical External Examination / did not turned up in the External Examination, hence he was marked as Absent.

¶25

8. That with regard to the statement made in para 11 to para 14 of the writ petition it is most humbly and respectfully stated and submitted that a joint detail report duly signed by the then District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and with regard to the petitioner the deponent has already been sent to the Jharkhand Academic Council vide letter no.21, dated 12.01.2013.

¶26

8. The report has also been brought on record. The report of the Committee also suggests that the petitioner was absent.

¶27

9. Now the question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner was absent or not. The petitioner claims that he was not absent and he appeared in external examination practical papers. Respondents deny the same specifically. It is their case also that committee also found that the petitioner was absent. This dispute is a dispute of fact. This fact is also complicated. This complicated question of fact, which needs recording of evidence, cannot be gone into in a writ application.

¶28

10. Further, I find that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that the results were declared on 23.07.2008 and he was aware of the aforesaid fact in July 2008 itself. This writ petition was filed in July 2012, i.e., after four years. The petitioner tries to justify the delay by stating that he was filing representations. Mere filing of representations cannot condone the delay of four years.

¶29

11. Thus, on the ground of complicated disputed question of facts and also on the ground of delay, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

12. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed on merits, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.4890 of 2014 is rendered infructuous.

¶31

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶32

Kumar/Cp-02

Jagran Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagran Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand 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

Nishu Khan Alias Sarfaraz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gafur Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tahir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anju Kumari Vs Jharkhand Academic Council

Alok Mishra and Ors. Vs Law Department