STATE OF U.P Vs. ROHIT BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present special appeal is preferred by the Appellants challenging the judgement and order dated September 8, 2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2020 (Rohit Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others) and judgement and order dated July 30, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 158 of 2021.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent No.1-petitioner secured admission in BTC Training Course 2015 in Jaymurti College Nagla Ball, Sirsaganj, Firozabad. The respondent No.1-petitioner passed the first semester examination. Thereafter the respondent No.1-petitioner has also passed the second semester written exam of BTC Training Course (Batch 2015) and was sent for internship on August 31, 2017 to Primary School Chandari, Vikas Khand Madanpur, Firozabad. The Respondent No.1-petitioner appeared before aforesaid college on September 4, 2017 and completed his internship on October 13, 2017. Result of internship was declared on October 13, 2017 and respondent No.1-petitioner obtained 97/100 marks. The Respondent No.1-petitioner on October 13, 2017 submitted the above-mentioned result in the office of the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Firozabad and thereafter the result of the second semester of BTC Course-2015 was declared on March 21, 2018, in which the respondent No.1-petitioner was found unsuccessful due to absence in internship.

(3.) Thereafter, respondent No.1-petitioner on enquiry came to know that the marks of internship of second semester was not available with the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Firozabad (Appellant No.4) although the same was submitted on October 13, 2017. On September 19, 2018, respondent No.1-petitioner submitted an application along with the photocopy of the result of the internship of second semester and other documents before the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (Appellant No.2), however, the result of the respondent No.1-petitioner was not corrected by the respondent authorities.