Allowed

Neha Bakshi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2010CWP/8752/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition was filed by a B.Ed student whose admission was cancelled after the university re-evaluated her eligibility post-result declaration. The Court held that the petitioner was eligible on the admission date and allowed the petition, setting aside the cancellation and directing the university to declare her examination result. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Action of respondents in cancelling the petitioner's admission is set aside and the University is directed to declare the result of the final examination within one month.

Neha Bakshi Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 8752 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.2.2010.

¶3

Neha Bakshi --Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana and others

¶6

--Respondents

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶8

Present:Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Dr. Balram Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for respondent no.2. ***

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner was a student of B.A. III and appeared in the final examination in the year 2008 but she had a compartment in the paper of Political Science. She appeared in the supplementary examination for the said paper in 2008 itself. The petitioner applied for admission to B.Ed course for the session 2008-09 on the basis of advertisement issued by the respondent-university. The last date for making application to the said course for the counselling and admission was 30.9.2008. After completion of counselling and admission, a large number of seats remained unfilled which persuaded some of the colleges to approach this Court. In CWP No. 17284 of 2008 and other connected matters a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 21.11.2008 directed the colleges to make admissions against the available vacancies up to 5.12.2008. The petitioner also applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement issued by the various colleges under the order of the Court. Since the petitioner had compartment in one of the subjects, she approached the respondent-university for declaring her

¶13

CWP. No. 8752 of 2009

¶14

-2-

¶15

result which had not been declared till 5.12.2008. The respondentuniversity on the application of the petitioner declared her result on 5.12.2008 itself. Under the norms laid down by the university the minimum eligibility for admission to B.Ed course was 45% marks. It is specifically mentioned that the petitioner on clearing the examination secured more than 45 marks. Respondent no.2-college to which the petitioner was allocated admitted the petitioner to the course. While the petitioner was pursuing the course, the university vide its letter dated 3.2.2009 asked the Principal to check up the eligibility of the petitioner at the time of admission. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid communication the admission of the petitioner to B.Ed course had been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible at the time of admission.

¶16

It is under these circumstances that the petitioner filed this petition. At the time of issuance of notice of motion vide order dated 29.5.2009, this Court had permitted the petitioner to appear in the final examination, though, the result of the petitioner was not be declared. The petitioner had already appeared in the examination.

¶17

In the reply filed by respondent no.2-college, it is admitted that the petitioner had cleared compartment on 5.12.2008. Thus, the eligibility of the petitioner cannot be disputed as on the date of her admission.

¶18

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The action of the respondents in cancelling the admission of petitioner to B.Ed course is hereby set aside. The respondent-university is directed to declare the result of the petitioner of the final examination for which she has already appeared within a period of one month from today.

¶19

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶20

17.2.2010. lucky

Neha Bakshi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha Bakshi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

(O&M)Navodaya Vidayala Samiti Vs Shamsher Singh etc.

Sonam Mittal and Ors. Vs M D Uni

Jai Singh Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Association of Educational Colleges of Hry. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Om Parbha Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Deepak Jain S/Osh. Kalash Chand Jain and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.