Allahabad High Court
Anuradha vs Director, U.P. Rajya Shikshak ... on 15 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)1UPLBEC754
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
JUDGMENT
Palok Basu and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
1. The Special Appeal arises out of an order of the learned Single Judge denying the petitioner the relief claimed through her writ petition seeking admission to the B.T.C. training course for the relevant year.
2. After hearing Shri Manu Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ajit Kumar, there appear sufficient reason explaining the absence of the Counsel on the last hearing and also explaining the delay in filing the restoration application. Shri P. K. Singhal, learned Standing Counsel has been heard opposition.
3. There being sufficient grounds for condoning the delay as well as restoring the matter to the original number, both applications consequently, are allowed. Special appeal is thus restored to its original number. The principal argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that had the benefit of the qualification emanating from obtaining the certificate from N.C.C. is extended to the petitioner, she should have been awarded 53 marks or above. To be precise, according to Shri Manu Saxena the quality points which the petitioner should have been awarded were 53.44.
4. When the petitioner was not considered fit for getting admission in the said B.T.C. course, she had come up to this Court through writ petition No. 231123 of 1999 which was disposed of with the direction that the petitioner's representation should be reconsidered upon which the authority concerned has gone into the relevant issues. A finding has been recorded indicating that the N.C.C. certificate was not appended alongwith application form nor the relevant column in the application form was adequately tick marked by the petitioner, therefore, it has been held that non awarding of the additional mark claimed by the petitioner for the N.C.C. certificate was correct.
5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that assuming the N.C.C certificate was not with the form but was subsequently filed through the representation, a copy of which was already filed alongwith the writ petition, the respondents were duty bound to consider and deal with the matter proceeding on the basis that the petitioner had that certificate, The contention, therefore, proceeds that it is the existence of the requisite qualification, which should have been the basis, and not merely the filing of the certificate. It is contended that once the petitioner had that qualification the learned Single Judge's order directing consideration of the representation should necessarily have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had the required N.C.C. qualification and the certificate whereof was filed later.
6. Shri P. K. Singhal, however, stated that once the certificate was not appended and the necessary tick mark was absent at the relevant column there was no material with the answering respondent on the basis of which they could have been granted the mark for N.C.C. certicate.
7. Coming to the respective arguments, both the arguments stand at strong footing but the order of the learned Single Judge was over and above these arguments. While it is true that there is a noting in the impugned order that the petitioner had not filed the N.C.C. certificate, therefore, to that extent Shri P. K. Singhal's argument is right, it is equally true that the petitioner has filed the Certificate with the representation and also a copy with the writ petition and, therefore, the argument of Shri Manu Saxena is also correct which is to the effect that the petitioner did have the qualification though she failed to append the certificate.
8. Under the circumstances this special appear succeeds and is allowed. The learned Single Judge's view rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner challenging the order passed on representation is set aside. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned for consideration of the petitioner's application for admission to the B.T.C. course for the relevant year or for the subsequent year treating the filing of the certificate by the petitioner as an accomplished fact but later on and not alongwith the application. In case it is bound that the course for which the petitioner had applied is already or about to complete by passage of time, her application may be considered afresh in accordance with law and the rules for the same course in the subsequent year now available.
Parties will bear their costs.