LALITA RANI Vs. REGISTRAR, M D U ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for the class of B.Ed. under Roll No. 1040110871 for the session 2010 -11 and for quashing order dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure P -5) whereby, the respondents have refused to declare the result of the petitioner.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner is that she had passed the entrance exam for B.Ed. and was selected for admission in respondent no. 2 - institute and appeared in all the exams as per the prescribed schedule of the university. However, when the results were declared, her result was not declared and she gave an application that she had studied regularly and after verification of all the certificates, college had given her admission and she had not done any mistake. Thereafter, legal notice dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P -2) was served on the university for declaration of result. A communication was addressed by the university to respondent no. 2 - institute after receiving the legal notice that the result of the petitioner had not been declared due to non receiving of grading certificate and the institute was directed to submit the grading certificate at the earliest so that the result be declared. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 2938 of 2013 with a prayer to declare the result of the petitioner, which was disposed of by making following observations: -

(3.) IN pursuance of the same, the speaking order dated 25.06.2013 has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure P -5), which is a subject matter of consideration. Vide the said order, the Registrar of respondent -university noted that the petitioner had scored only 48% marks in Graduation whereas the eligibility condition required minimum of 50% marks in the Bachelor degree or in the Masters degree to seek admission, as per the prospectus. The records had been received from the college and it was mentioned against her name that she was having less marks and the college concerned had been intimated through the outsourcing agency NYSA about the ineligibility of the candidate and her admission was not cleared. In spite of that, the college did not cancel her admission and rather did not delete her name and a roll number was also issued by the outsourcing agency of the university and the college obtained her roll number in spite of her deficiency and resultantly, she gave the said examination, result of which was not being declared.