Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 614 (UTT)

Kavita Saklani v. H. N. B. Garhwal University

2023-10-30

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The petitioner seeks direction to respondent no.1 H.N.B. Garhwal University (Central) Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal (“the University”) so as to declare the final result of the petitioner of her two years B.Ed. Course. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she appeared in B.Ed. Entrance Examination conducted by the University. She was successful under the Economically Weaker Section (“EWS”) category and she was allotted the respondent no.2/Dronacharaya Institute of Teachers Education, Haripur, Herbertpur, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun (“the College”). The petitioner took admission and cleared first semester, second semester and third semester examinations. The results were duly declared by the University, but the fourth semester result was not declared. The petitioner did make various representations. Aggrieved by the inaction of the University, the petitioner filed instant petition. 4. The counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 has admitted the petitioner’s case that she belongs to EWS category. She has a certificate. According to the respondent no.2, the petitioner was admitted under EWS category and this information was shared with the University, which at the relevant time had directed for submission of income certificate. The certificate was given by the petitioner. Her result was declared. But, the result of fourth semester of the petitioner was not declared even after many representation made by the College. 5. According to the respondent no.2 “it was orally told that the petitioner cannot be considered under EWS category as her EWS certificate was not submitted at that time of admission. Now such stand of the respondent no.1, the University is totally arbitrary, illegal and malafide and more so an act of harassment then an act under law”. 6. The respondent no.1/the University also filed its counter affidavit and categorically in para 3 of the counter affidavit admitted that the petitioner belongs to EWS category. In para 3, the respondent no.1/the University states that the EWS category certificate filed by the petitioner was sent to Tehsildar, Sadar Tehsil, Dehradun for verification and thereafter that “the said verification is received in favour of the candidate on 27.04.2023”. It has also been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit. 7. In para 3, the respondent no.1/the University states that the EWS category certificate filed by the petitioner was sent to Tehsildar, Sadar Tehsil, Dehradun for verification and thereafter that “the said verification is received in favour of the candidate on 27.04.2023”. It has also been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted certificate as required at the time of her admission in the B.Ed. course. She appeared in the examination and result for first, second and third semesters were declared, but final semester result has not been declared. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the College would submit that the result should have been declared by the respondent no.1/ the University on time. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/University would submit that now EWS certificate is there, therefore, result may be declared. 10. In fact, there has been no dispute. It is the case of the respondent no.1/University in its counter affidavit para 3 that the verification of EWS category certificate of the petitioner was complete on 19.04.2023. 11. What had prevented the University to declare the result then? When was the verification to be done? Why it was not done on time? Even if the verification was complete on 19.04.2023, why the result was not declared on the same date? After all it is the matter of career of a student, who has completed a professional course like B.Ed. The Court refrains to make further comment on the working of the respondent no.1/ the University. In such matters, even delay of a day may divest a candidate to appear or apply for some positions based on the degree which he had obtained. 12. In fact, there is no dispute now. The respondent no.1/the University is ready to declare the result. In view of it, the petition deserves to be allowed. 13. The petition is allowed. 14. The respondent no.1/ the University is directed to declare the result of the petitioner immediately without any further delay.