Disposed

Ganga Parashad v. State and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC5 Jul 2006WPMS/839/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought additional marks to qualify in B.Ed. counseling. Court permitted representation regarding merit calculation and directed respondent university to dispose of it within 15 days. Writ petition disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach authority with representation; University Vice-Chancellor directed to consider case within 15 days.

Ganga Parashad Vs State and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Uttarakhand HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 839 (M/S) OF 2006

¶3

Ganga Parashad S/o Sri Rehtu Lal Sharma R/o village Kharanja-Kutubpur, P.O.-Kaksar, District Haridwar (Uttaranchal). ..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Higher Education, Dehradun.

¶6

Vice Chancellor, H.N.B.G.U. Sri Nagar Garhwal 3. Registrar, H.N.B.G.U. Sri Nagar Garhwal.

¶7

.......Respondent

¶8

Dated 5.7.2006

¶9

Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh & Atul Bahuguna, Advocates for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the State. Both the parties have agreed that let the matter be finally disposed of at the admission stage.

¶11

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to provide 15 additional marks of teacher wards to the petitioner and also direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for B.Ed. Session 2006.

¶12

Briefly stated, the petitioner has passed his graduation in the year, 2000 and thereafter in the year 2002, he appeared in the post graduation examination with English from Chaudhary Charan Singh University. In the year, 2005, he appeared for the B.Ed. Entrance

¶13

Examination, 2005 of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University, Sri Nagar-Garhwal.

¶14

Thereafter, the University has published a list of candidates, who were eligible for the next counseling on 16.06.2006 in the B.Ed. Management Quota and the last group which was selected according to the merit, the qualifying marks is to the extent of 226, when in point of fact, the petitioner has secured only 213 marks.

¶15

The petitioner has requested for 15 additional marks in order to qualify in the merit list and approached the authority concerned in pursuance of the Item No. 12 of B.Ed. Admission Form, 2005. The same is quoted below.

¶16

fu;ekad	fu;ekad dk	fooj.k	izek.k&i= nsus	okyk	vfrfjDr
	ftlds vad gSA	pkgrs	vf/kdkjh
izek.k&Ik=	1-ekU;rk	izkIr	ftyk	f’k{kk	15
	ek0fo0 ds		vf/kdkjh
	2-f’k{k.ksRrj dk okMZ	deZpkjh
			Vadsk dk ;ksx		15

¶17

Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the authority by making a representation with in period of one week.

¶18

In case the representation is filed, the respondent no.2, is directed to dispose of the representation and consider the case of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶19

(Rajesh Tandon, J.)

¶20

5.7.2006

Ganga Parashad v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Parashad v. State 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

Km. Ritu Goshwami Vs Ua Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parishad

Jagmindra Singh Vs Civil Judge J/Dand Others

Perma Lal Nanela Vs Commissioner Saharanpur Division and Others

Bachi Ram Vs Addl. Dist. Education Officer and Ors.

Km Himani Pande Vs State and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs State and Ors.