Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 531 (HP)

Sanjay Kumar v. State Of H. P.

2014-05-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. As common question of fact and law is involved in all these writ petitions, we deem it proper to dispose of all the petitions by this common judgment. 2. Mr.J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, stated at the Bar that the reply filed on behalf of the respondents-State in CWP No. 1430 of 2014, be treated as reply filed on behalf of the said respondents in all the writ petitions. His statement is taken on record. Ordered accordingly. 3. The petitioners, by way of the present writ petitions, have basically laid challenge to the decision taken by the respondent-H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board, (for short, the 'respondent Board'), in its 48th meeting held on 29.5.2013, whereby it was resolved as under: "3. After detailed deliberations the Board felt that presently the results of many Polytechnics are less than 20% and the Board Office had issued notices to such Polytechnics for improving the quality in academic system. By taking cognizance of these poor performances of results, the Board observed that there should be a minimum criteria for promotion/admission to the next higher semesters from the admission session 2013-14 and the Board unanimously decided that the students who will not qualify minimum 50% of theory subjects in a whole semester/year they will not be promoted/admitted in the next higher semesters/years. In case odd number of theory subjects, the 50% will be rounded towards lower side. The decision will be applicable from the aforesaid admission session." 4. Notices were issued in all the writ petitions and by way of interim order, the writ petitioners were allowed to pursue their studies in the next semester. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. Keeping in view the difficult topography of the State of Himachal Pradesh and also the fact that the career of a larger number of students is involved, we direct the respondent-Board to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of one time relaxation, in the interest of justice. We also make it clear that In case sanction of the Government is required, proposal/recommendation be sent to respondent No.1 for appropriate order(s). The decision be taken within four weeks from today. Interim direction shall continue to operate in all the cases till the decision is taken by the competent Authority. We also make it clear that In case sanction of the Government is required, proposal/recommendation be sent to respondent No.1 for appropriate order(s). The decision be taken within four weeks from today. Interim direction shall continue to operate in all the cases till the decision is taken by the competent Authority. It is made clear that this order came to be made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases and shall not be treated as precedent. 6. With the above direction, all the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. 7. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on each file.