Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. Vice Chancellor Hnb Garhwal Central University Srinagar and Others

Uttarakhand HC28 May 2014WPMS/1216/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the University's rejection of a thesis and direct a viva voce. The Court held that the Visitor is the sole competent authority for such decisions, especially since the Petitioner sought this remedy after a coordinate Bench had directed the University to conduct the viva.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned decision upheld; coordinates Bench order not bypassed.

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs Vice Chancellor Hnb… — Education and Admissions | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2014 (M/S)

¶2

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma …..Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

Vice Chancellor HNB Garhwal Central University, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal and others

¶5

…..Respondents

¶6

Mr.L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents.

¶7

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

¶8

Present petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶9

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned decision of EC of the University vide resolution No. 15 dated 22.09.2008 and letter dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure-6).

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to conduct the viva voce of the petitioner at the earliest.

¶11

(iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

(iv) Award cost of the petition.”

¶13

Undisputedly, petitioner earlier filed another WPMS No. 1512 of 2013 which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 05.07.2013 permitting the petitioner to file fresh representation before the Visitor of the H.N.B. Garhwal

¶14

¶15

University within three weeks raising grievances against the rejection of the thesis submitted by the petitioner.

¶16

In view of the order passed on 05.07.2013, this Court cannot go behind the order dated 05.07.2013 for quashing the order dated 18.10.2008 directing the respondents to conduct vice voce of the petitioner.

¶17

In my opinion, Visitor is the only competent authority to take decision as to whether thesis of the petitioner was wrongly rejected or ought to have been accepted after holding the viva voce of the petitioner.

¶18

In view of the above, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶19

CLMA No. 5423 of 2014 also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(Alok Singh, J.)

¶21

Dated 28^th May, 2014

¶22

Shiv

¶23

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. Vice Chancellor Hnb Garhwal Central University Srinagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. Vice Chancellor Hnb Garhwal Central University Srinagar and Others

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

M/s Matin Health Care Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

M/s Maxcure Nutravedics Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Pooran Singh Bhandari Vs Dr. R.Rajesh Kumar and Anr.

S.s.k. Traders Manufactures Dubakiya Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Arvind Kumar Goel Vs The Hon'ble High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital and Others

Divan Singh Rawal Vs J.c. Pandey