Dismissed

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2016LPA/2186/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal arising from the Punjab Subordinate Tribunal Eligibility Test, the appellant challenged his failure to qualify and the denial of extra time requested belatedly. The single-judge court dismissed the claim as highly belated, noting the appellant's acquiescence for over ten months. The High Court bench refused to interfere upholding the single judge's order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

LPA-2186-2016 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA-2186-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 08, 2016

Bhupinder Singh

.....Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

¶11

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

¶12

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

¶13

.......

¶14

Present: Mr.Somesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

¶15

SURYA KANT, J.

¶16

Appellant appeared in PSTET-1 Examination held on 13.12.2015. The result was declared on 23.12.2015 and he failed to qualify the same. Another Examination was held subsequently on 25.09.2016, the result of which is still awaited. At that juncture, i.e. almost after 10 months, the appellant woke up and questioned the Examination held on 13.12.2015 on the ground that he, being a differently abled person, ought to have been granted extra time to attempt all the questions. Learned Single Judge has turned down his claim being highly belated.

¶17

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. No exception can be taken to the view formulated by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is to blame himself for the inordinate delay in approaching the Meenu 2016.12.16 15:18 I attest to the accuracy andCourt. His acquiescence and the manner in which he allowed the period of authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

LPA-2186-2016 (O&M)

¶20

almost ten months to lapse, has rightly been taken as a valid ground to refuse any indulgence.

¶21

No case to interfere with the order under appeal is made out.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE November 08, 2016 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE

¶24

1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No

¶25

Meenu 2016.12.16 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Hmd Technologies Vs State of Haryana and Others

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pushottam Dass Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Search Pharma Private Limited Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Brafat Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kamlesh Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.