Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1373 (ALL)

Yashoda(Km. ) v. State of U. P. and Others

2012-06-20

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2012
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.;— The petition has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent no.3, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Agra to grant him admission in B.T.C. Training Course 2011. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief are that the petitioner did his Adhikari Pariksha (equivalent to High School) from the Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Intermediate from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and B.Sc. From Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra. The petitioner belonged to O.B.C. Category. The respondents issued an advertisement inviting application for admission in B.T.C. Training Course 2011, in response thereto the petitioner applied on the prescribed form on 22.9.2011 in Science group. The respondents issued first provisional select list/cut of merit on 13.11.2011. Under the O.B.C. category (Science) female, the cut of merit was 192.28. According to the petitioner, her percentage/merit was 204.81. 3. The respondent no.3 issued a letter dated 1.12.2011 to the petitioner to appear in his office along with all the relevant original certificates for the verification, in compliance thereof the petitioner on 8th December 2011 appeared before the respondent no.3 and submitted all the original certificates including caste and domicile certificates along with an affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after notification, the petitioner was found eligible for the admission in the said course. 4. It is stated that the petitioner has been orally informed by the office of respondent no.3 that the petitioner has been refused the admission on the ground that he has passed Adhikari Pariksha from the Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan and for the said reason, his candidature has been canceled. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura was recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education in terms of Chapter 14 Rule 2 (30) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the petitioner did his Adhikari Pariksha with English subject in the Academic Session 2002-03 from the Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura, the Board of Intermediate and High School, Allahabad, as stated above had recognized Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura forl the said reason, it had allowed the petitioner to appear in its Intermediate examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate, Allahabad, on the basis of the said degree, he has also allowed by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra to appear in the B.Sc. Examination. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Akanksha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No.68714 of 2011. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura has been declared as fake university by the University Grants Commission as it has been found as a bogus and fictitious institution. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, nine such institutions has been declared to be the bogus and fictitious institutions, Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura is one of them. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the rival parties and perused the material on record. 10. It is a common ground that Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura has now been declared as fake university and the U.P. High School and Intermediate Board had recognized these institutions under Chapter 14, Regulation 1, the Board of High School under Regulation 2 of Chapter 14 has mentioned a number of the institutions whose examination has been recognized as equivalent to High School examination. A perusal of the list of those institutions would indicate that Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura is at serial no.30 of the said list. This Court in the case of Akanksha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No.68714 of 2011 has considered this issue in great detail. Para-26 of the Judgment is relevant for the present issue. A perusal of the list of those institutions would indicate that Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura is at serial no.30 of the said list. This Court in the case of Akanksha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No.68714 of 2011 has considered this issue in great detail. Para-26 of the Judgment is relevant for the present issue. It reads as under :- "It appear that at the time when Adhikari Pariksha of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) was included in the list of recognized institution, Board treated GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) to be a University governed by provisions of 1956 Act and therefore the same was included therein. It is for this reason when Government of India acting upon identification made by UGC declared GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) as a fake university, the consequential exclusion of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) Adhikari Pariksha from the Regulation underwent with the U.P. Board. The said declaration and existing Regulation has not wiped out the examination already conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) up to 2008. Earlier Adhikari Pariksha without any restriction of time was recognized as equivalent to High School of U.P. Board but after amendment made vide notification dated 08.09.2008, Regulation, as it stand today, it continue to recognise Adhikari Pariksha conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) but now it is confined upto 2008 and not beyond that. The validity of this Regulation, as it stand today, has not been disputed or assailed by anyone." 11. The petitioner did his Adhikari Pariksha from the Gurukul Vishvvidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura in the academic session 2002-03, in view of the said finding of the Court, the matter needs consideration by the appropriate authority. 12. In the totality of the circumstances, the respondent no.3, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Agra is directed to consider the issue and pass appropriate order in the light of the Judgment mentioned herein above. The petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation along with certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3 within ten days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall consider it in the light of the Judgment of Akanksha Gautam Vs. The petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation along with certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3 within ten days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall consider it in the light of the Judgment of Akanksha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others and the observation made herein above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. 14. No order as to costs. _