BHUMIKA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Vinay Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

(2.) THE petitioner appeared in the Uttarakhand Pre-Medical Test, 2010 as a female O.B.C. candidate. It is alleged that there were two papers. THE first paper comprised of Physics and Chemistry and the second paper was of Botany and Geology. It is alleged that the provisional results were declared by the University in its official website on 10th June, 2010 and that the final results were declared on 17th June, 2010 again in the website. THE petitioner came to know about the final results and, upon checking the marks alongwith the official answer key issued by the University, found that the petitioner was entitled to 14 more marks in the first paper and one more mark in the second paper, i.e. total of 15 marks and, accordingly, applied for correction of her marks on 25th June, 2010. THE application for correction of the results remained pending and, accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to rectify her results.

(3.) THE fact that the petitioner's village is located in a remote area is not disputed but what is disputed is that even in this village there is an availability of internet facility. Be that as it may. THE fact that the results were only declared in the website of the University is not sufficient for the communication of the results to the candidates. As per the broucher, the University was required to publish the results in the newspaper which has not been done. Consequently, the benefit that the petitioner was unaware of the declaration of the provisional results has to tilt in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be non-suited only on the short ground that she did not apply for the correction of the results within seven days from the declaration of the provisional list. Since, the provisional list was not published in any newspaper, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not applying for correction of the results.