Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alka Ramteke vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2013
W.P.20218/2012
21.1.2013
Parties present.
Case of the petitioners is that they are students of
respondent no.4 Satya Sai College of Education, Balaghat and
had appeared in the examination of B. Ed. Course for the academic session 2007-08 conducted by respondent no.3 University but their results have not been declared till date. It is prayed that respondent no.3 may be directed to declare results of the petitioners who had appeared in the examination of B. Ed.(Science) Course, 2007-08.
Learned counsel for the University submitted that so far as respondent no.3 is concerned, it has constituted a committee headed by Professor S.S. Pandey, Dean faculty of Science who is directed to submit report. After report of the said committee result shall be declared.
Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for their result as controversy is covered by the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others Vs. Subhash Rahangdale and others AIR 2012 SC 1097= (2012 )2 SCC 425). He has further submitted that in the case of Subhash Rahangdale (Supra) the respondent no.4 was not a party.
In reply it is submitted that institution of respondent no.4 is duly recognized by the NCTE vide order dated 28.10.2006 and students of respondent no.4 are entitled to appear in the aforesaid examination for the academic session 2007-08.
It is further submitted by Shri J.K. Pillai Advocate, for respondent no.4 that in compliance of the aforesaid directions the petitioners of the aforesaid institution had appeared in the examination and are entitled for declaration of their result.
The controversy of recognition of institution is resolved vide an order dated 7.10.2009 passed in R. P. No.443/2009 (Subhash Rahangadale vs. NCTE & others) at the instance of respondent No.4 (Annexure R/2). The relevant order reads as under:
" Under the similar circumstances we in writ petition no.9392/2009 given following direction:-
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that since there is a recognition and also the affiliation, therefore the petitioner society shall be permitted to run the institution and the institution shall also permit the students to appear in the ensuing examination for the year 2007-2008.
In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to issue a similar direction in the present case in favour of the review petitioner and thus we direct that the institution shall also be permitted the students to appear in the ensuing examination. In the present case only the deficiency which have been pointed out relates to the area and not the faculty, the deficiencies are of similar nature and shall be removed within time as given by respondents no.1 &
2."
As the position has been clarified in R.P.No.443/2009 and it is apparent that students of the institution of respondent no.4 had appeared in the examination for the academic session 2007-08 in the course of B.Ed., the aforesaid students are entitled for declaration of the result and non-declaration of their result by the University at any pretext can not be permitted. Respondent University is directed to verify the genuineness of the petitioners whether they are genuine students of the respondent college or not.
This petition is finally disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 University to declare the result of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the aforesaid order.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A. Siddiqui)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ag