LAWS(P&H)-1993-3-34

ANURAG GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 23, 1993
ANURAG GUPTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This judgment of mine will dispose of C. W. P. No. 16315 of 1992, as also C. W. P. No. 1597 of 1993. The fate of the latter writ petition depends on the result of the former writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner in C. W. P. No. 16315 of 1992, Miss Anurag Gupta, had passed the Senior Secondary Examination of Board of School Education, Haryana (hereinafter called the Board), in the year 1991 and had obtained 234 marks out of 400 marks. In the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, she had secured 51 / 100, 55/ 100 and 67/100 marks respectively. She had applied for improvement of marks in the subject of Physics and after the improvement in marks, her total marks increased from 234 to 241 out of 400. On 22/09/1992, the Secretary of the Board wrote to the petitioner that on account of the improvement of marks she should return the old detailed marks certificate, so that a new detailed marks certificate could be issued showing the improvement in the marks.

(3.) The petitioner sought admission to B.A.M.S. 1st year course in Shri Krishna Government Ayurvedic College, Kurukshetra, for the session 1992-93. The merit list is prepared on the basis of aggregate of marks in the three elective subjects, i. e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology in 10 + 2 examination. When she submitted her admission forms, she mentioned that she had obtained 60% aggregate marks in the Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination, i.e. 10 + 2. At the time of interview before the admission Committee, she produced the Gazette showing that she had obtained 241 marks. From the averments made in the written statement of the respondents, I find that the petitioner had been given admission by taking into consideration the Gazettee shown to the Admission Committee and taking it that the peiitioner had obtained 241 out of 300 marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, i.e. 80.33%. Her merit was prepared on the basis of 80.33% marks. The petitioner did not point out the error that in fact she had only obtained 60% marks in the three subjects, referred to above, and not 80.33% marks.