Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 599 (UTT)

Kamlesh Negi v. H. N. B. Garhwal University

2014-12-18

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. H.N.B. Garhwal University Srinagar, Garhwal conducted entrance examination for the admission seekers in B.Ed. courses in different affiliated colleges for the academic sessions 2008-09; a general category candidate was required to secure minimum 40% marks in each subject in the entrance examination; perusal of annexure No.1 to the writ petition, would reveal that in paper No. II, petitioner could secure only 78 marks out of 200; therefore, in paper No. II, she could not get minimum 40% marks. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the fact that petitioner could not secure minimum 40% marks in paper No. II in the entrance examination, petitioner was granted admission in respondent No.2 College in B.Ed. course; petitioner deposited tuition fee with the respondent No.2 and thereafter, petitioner was permitted to appear in the final B.Ed. examination conducted by the University vide annexure No.3, therefore, University should be directed to declare the result of the petitioner of the B.Ed. examination wherein petitioner has appeared in the year 2009. 3. On being asked repeatedly as to how respondent No.2 College was allotted to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has no answer to it. 4. Perusal of annexure No.3 neither contains seal of the University nor signature of any responsible officer of the University, therefore, annexure No.3, cannot be said to have been issued by the University. 5. In the counter affidavit, University has taken specific stand that petitioner was never granted admission by the University in the College respondent No.2 nor admission of the petitioner was ever approved by the University nor any roll number was allotted to the petitioner by the University. Therefore, result of the petitioner even if she was successful in appearing in examination with the help of respondent No.2, cannot be declared. 6. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. Since petitioner could not qualify the entrance examination, therefore, admission of the petitioner was itself illegal. Even if petitioner with the help of College / respondent No.2 was able to appear in the examination, University can withhold the result saying initial admission of the petitioner was illegal. Since University has never approved the admission of the petitioner, therefore, principle of estoppel cannot be applied against the University merely because petitioner was wrongly permitted to appear in the examination. Since University has never approved the admission of the petitioner, therefore, principle of estoppel cannot be applied against the University merely because petitioner was wrongly permitted to appear in the examination. Therefore, University is not bound to declare the result of those candidates who have been illegally granted admission by the private Colleges. 7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.