BAL GOVIND JOSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared as a private candidate in the B.A. Part-I Examinations conducted by the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in 2010. THE petitioner has cleared his examinations but he is not being given his results. THE petitioner contacted the University and also filed an application for the redressal of his grievances. Inspite of repeated efforts, no further action was taken. On the contrary, the petitioner was informed that he cannot be permitted to raise such a claim as his very admission in B.A. Part-I was on the basis of "Adhikari Pariksha" Examination conducted by the Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindaban Mathura which is not recognised. According to the University the said examination is from a University which has been classified as a fake University by the University Grants Commission.

(2.) The prayer of the petitioner is for declaration of his results and for a further direction to permit him to appear in the B.A. Part-II Examinations to be conducted by the University. Sri R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9676 of 2008 (Ravi Dutta Sharma v. THE Chaudhary Charan Singh University Meerut & others) decided on 4th February, 2009 to contend that any such declaration or classification by the University Grants Commission is of no avail to the Meerut University, inasmuch as, this Court has already declared that such a declaration is beyond the jurisdiction of the University Grants Commission. It is further submitted by Sri Gupta relying on the Letter dated 25th August, 2008 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examinations, Uttar Pradesh to the effect that the "Adhikari Pariksha" passed by the petitioner is equivalent to Intermediate (Class XII) Exams conducted by the Board upto the year 2008 whereas the petitioner has passed the said examination in the year 2004 and therefore the stand taken by the University is erroneous.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that the learned single Judge in view of the decision of Ravi Dutta Sharma held that the declaration of the University Grants Commission was beyond its jurisdiction and the said matter is still engaging the attention of the Court before the Division Bench. Even though submissions have been raised by Sri Khanna to contend that the said decision does not lay down law correctly, yet without going into the merits of the said claim, as the matter is pending before the Division Bench, the stand taken by the University in relation to equivalence has to be considered. The said issue relating to equivalence has not been dealt with by the learned single Judge in the decision in the case of Ravi Dutta Sharma .