Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 28.08.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 28 August, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:29089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 13887 of 2025
Decided on: 28.08.2025
Mahima Verma and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioners : Mr. Kunal Mehta and Mohit Thakur,
Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr.Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General for respondents No.
1 and 2.
: Mr. Lal Singh Mehta, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Lal Singh Mehta, learned Counsel and Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned Counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4, respectively.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners, who have appeared in the written examination of B.Ed. course conducted by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2025 21:31:24 :::CIS 22025:HHC:29089 .
the respondent-University under ICDEOL system have approached this Court with the prayer that the respondent-University be directed to declare their results as for want of declaration of their results, they are unable to submit their applications for the post of TGT, which have been advertised by respondent No. 3 and last date for applying where for is 30th of August, 2025.
3. As the Court was given the impression that but for the declaration of said result, the petitioners were eligible to participate in the process that stood initiated to appoint TGTs, the Court in the morning session of the day, directed learned Counsel for the respondent-University to have immediate instructions as to why the result of the petitioners was not being declared.
4. On this, learned Counsel for the respondent-University has obtained instructions from the Registrar-University, which are taken on record. On the request of learned Counsel for the respondent-University, these instructions are treated as response to the petition and relevant portion of the same is quoted herein below for ready reference:-
"1. That it is submitted, in the B.Ed. programme being run through Distance mode (CDOE/ICDOEL), H.P. University, Shimla, admission given to the candidates twice in year te.
January July batch in terms of the guidelines of the UGC (DEB)-2020. There is Annual examination system in Distance ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2025 21:31:24 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:29089 .
mode, whereas in regular mode. there is semester end examination system.
2. That the reasons for non-declaration of B.Ed.
(CDOE/ICDEOL) batch September, 2023-2025 is because of ongoing school teaching practice duration of two months for 2nd year, for which time given to students is from 4.08.2025 to 28.10.2025. After successful completion of two months teaching practice, there shall be final teaching practice examinations (250 marks) in the 1 week of November, 2025.
Thereafter only, result of B.Ed. Programme September, 2023 -
2025 batch will be declared. It is relevant to mention here that two months teaching practice is a mandatory part of B.Ed. programme curriculum as per NCTE norms.
3. Apart from this, it is submitted that whereas in regular mode the student undergo their Final Teaching practice examinations during 3rd semester and in Distance mode, the students will complete their final teaching practice at the end of B.Ed. 2" year.
It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the aforementioned instructions may kindly be taken on record in the interest of law and justice as prayed for."
5. It is evident from the instructions that it is not as if upon declaration of the result of the written test, which has been held in July, 2025, the petitioners would have completed their B.Ed.
course. In fact, in terms of the instructions, the petitioners in ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2025 21:31:24 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:29089 .
addition to the said written examination have to successfully complete two months teaching practice which has already commenced from 4th of August, 2025 and shall continue till 28th of August, 2025 and after successful completion of two months teaching practice, there again shall be a final teaching practice examination of 250 marks in the 1st week of November, 2025 and only thereafter the result of the B.Ed. Programme for the academic session 2023-2025 shall be declared. It is also mentioned in the instructions that two months teaching practice is a mandatory part of B.Ed. programmed curriculum as per NCTE norms.
6. In the backdrop of said instructions, this Court perused the averments made in the writ petition and perusal thereof demonstrates that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands. They have not spelled out in the writ petition that the declaration of the result of the examination in which they have participated in July, 2025 does not render them candidates who can be termed to have successfully completed the B.Ed. Course. It has been concealed in the petition that the petitioners were undergoing a mandatory two months teaching practice in terms of the NCTE norms and thereafter, there shall be a final teaching practice examination of 250 marks and it is only thereafter that the result of B.Ed. Programme was to be declared.
Therefore, as the present petition but natural is ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2025 21:31:24 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:29089 .
premature and as no reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioners, can be granted to them, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 28, 2025 (narender) ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2025 21:31:24 :::CIS