Allahabad High Court
Km. Mamta Mishra vs V.C., C.C.S. University And Others on 27 January, 2011
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4923 of 2011 Petitioner :- Km. Mamta Mishra Respondent :- V.C., C.C.S. University And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Niraj Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- Anurag Khanna Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University.
This petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 21st January, 2011 issued under the authority of the Registrar of the respondent-University intimating the petitioner that her results of B.Ed. shall not be declared as the petitioner had pursued two courses simultaneously which is impermissible in terms of Ordinance-4 of Chapter-IV of the Ordinances framed under the Meerut University Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not pursued two courses simultaneously and, therefore, the aforesaid objection is not in conformity of the Ordinance, hence the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the University submits that the petitioner had already applied for appearing in the entrance examination of the B.Ed. course while she was pursuing her post graduation in the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University and, therefore, Ordinance-4 of Chapter-IV is attracted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in the Case of Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69249 of 2010 on 18.1.2011, contends that the petitioner does not fall within the category of such candidates as described under the aforesaid Ordinance and, therefore, the writ petition be allowed.
Since there are no disputed questions of fact involved, learned counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of finally at this stage.
The admitted facts are that the petitioner appeared in the Joint Entrance Examinations of B.Ed. that were conducted in October, 2008. At that time, the petitioner was admittedly pursuing her post graduation in Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University. The results of the entrance examinations were declared on 20th May, 2009. The petitioner passed her M.A. examinations on 27th May, 2009 and appeared for the counseling of the B.Ed. entrance examinations on 31st May, 2009. After completion of the counseling, she was granted admission on 16th July, 2009.
In view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that a candidate cannot be prohibited from appearing in the entrance examination even if the candidate is pursuing some other course. Such is not the intention of the Ordinance which has been invoked by the University. The reason for the same is simple namely that a candidate can always appear in an entrance examination, and then if successful, can opt out either to pursue the course that the candidate is already pursuing, or might like to pursue the B.Ed. course after succeeding in the entrance examinations. This choice is available to the candidate and the same is not prohibited from being exercised under Ordinance-4 of Chapter-IV. The same is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Ordinance No.4 of Chapter IV:- No candidate shall be allowed to work for two degrees of the University simultaneously unless specifically provided in the statutes and ordinances."
The aforesaid position of law has been explained in the decision which has been relied on by the petitioner.
Apart from this, the petitioner passed her M.A. examinations on 27.5.2009 and the counseling took place thereafter on 31st May, 2009. Even if, the option was to be exercised, the same was to be exercised on the date of the counseling and not prior to that. In view of this, the petitioner having already completed her post graduation cannot be said to be in fact pursuing another course in any other University so as to attract the disability as defined in Ordinance-4 of Chapter IV.
The petitioner after completion of the counseling was granted admission on 16th July, 2009 whereafter she started pursuing her B.Ed. course. It is amply clear that the passing out in post graduation and admission in B.Ed. were separated by at least more than two months. The word simultaneous connotes togetherness, at the same time. It does not mean separation or existence of a time gap. Something has to be done side-by-side so as to describe it as simultaneous. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be said that she was working or pursuing two degree courses of any University simultaneously. The stand taken by the University, therefore, cannot be sustained.
The order impugned as communicated on 20th January, 2011 is hereby quashed. The decision of the Examination Committee is set aside. The respondent-University is directed to declare the results of the B.Ed. examinations of the petitioner forth with. The mark sheet should also be released accordingly and the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2011 Shiraz