1
Court No.39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 904 of 2009
Smt. Shabiba Khan
Vs.
Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut & Anr.
~~~~~~~
Counsel for the petitioner :- Sri Swapnil Kumar
Counsel for the respondents :- Sri Anurag Khanna
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30th August,
2008 passed by the Registrar of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University,
Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) by which the
representation filed by the petitioner for issuance of the mark-sheet of the
B.Ed. Examination 2006-07 has been rejected.
It is stated in the writ petition that after the petitioner passed the B.A.
III Year (Honours) Examination 2006 from the Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh, the petitioner took admission to the B.Ed. Course in Ishan Institute
of Management and Technology, Greater Noida (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘College’) for the session 2006-07 and on the basis of the admit card
issued by the University, the petitioner appeared at the Examination but her
mark-sheet has not been issued by the University. The petitioner, therefore,
filed Writ Petition No. 41922 of 2008 which was disposed of by the Cort
by the order dated 18th August, 2008 with the observation that the petitioner
may raise her grievance by filing a representation before the Registrar of
the University. The representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected
by the order dated 30th August, 2008 which is impugned in the present
petition.
The impugned order mentions that the petitioner had actually taken
admission in the College in the session 2005-06 and not in the session
2006-07 and that the examination for the year 2006-07 in which the
petitioner claims to have appeared had not been held. It also mentions that
the petitioner had obtained graduation degree from the Aligarh Muslim
University in the session 2005-06 and, therefore, she could not have been
granted admission for the same session 2005-06 in the College. It is also
stated that at the time of declaration of result it was found from the
2
examination form submitted by the petitioner that she had appeared at the
2005-06 graduation examination from the Aligarh Muslim University as
also at the B.Ed. 2005-06 examination from the College and, therefore, in
view of Ordinance 4 contained in Chapter IV of the Ordinances framed by
the University which provides that no candidate shall be allowed to work
for two degrees of the University simultaneously, the result of the
petitioner cannot be declared.
Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the University issued the admit card to the petitioner for
appearing as a regular B.Ed candidate for the session 2006-07 on the basis
of which the petitioner also appeared at the examination and, therefore, the
University cannot now contend that the petitioner had been admitted by the
College in the session 2005-06 and had also appeared at the said
examination.
Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
University has submitted that the petitioner had infact been admitted by the
College for the session 2005-06 and mere mention of the session 2006-07
in the admit card does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim that
she had been admitted in the session 2006-07 and not 2005-06.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties.
The Registrar of the University, in the impugned order, has made a
categorical statement that the petitioner had been admitted in the College in
the session 2005-06. No evidence whatsoever has been filed by the
petitioner to establish that the petitioner had infact been admitted in the
College in the session 2006-07. All that has been contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that since the University had issued the admit
card to the petitioner mentioning 2006-07, the University cannot turn
around and contend that she had been admitted in an earlier session.
This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted. Mere issuance of the admit card does not confer any right upon
the petitioner. It was for the petitioner to establish that she had been
admitted in the session 2006-07, particularly when the University in the
impugned order had specifically mentioned that the petitioner had been
3
admitted in the session 2005-06. Infact, as has also been observed in the
impugned order, the examination for the session 2006-07 had not been
conducted by the University at the time of filing of the earlier writ petition
by the petitioner. This only shows that it was 2005-06 examination that was
held in which the petitioner had appeared and, as noticed hereinabove, the
petitioner could not have admitted to the College in the session 2005-06 as
the petitioner was pursuing the graduation course in the Aligarh Muslim
University in the said academic session.
The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The writ
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date:- 05.01.2010
SK/-