Allahabad High Court
Meena Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 April, 2018
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13740 of 2018
Petitioner :- Meena Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition has been filed seeking inter alia the following relief : -
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to permit the petitioners to appear in the back paper examination in 4th paper of 3rd Semester in B.T.C. examination of 2016(2013) within stipulated period."
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners is exactly similar to that of Aradhana Yadav, who had filed Writ C No. 61235 of 2017 for the same relief. The said writ petition was decided after exchange of affidavits by judgment dated 22.2.2018. The relevant part of the said judgment is extracted below : -
"Be that as it may, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner had been issued admit card for his appearance in back paper examination in the year 2016, and she either did not appear, or could not, in that examination, her failure to appear would amount to failure to clear the first back paper examination and therefore in any view of the matter it would exhaust one chance out of the alleged two that she had. The claim that the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the first back paper examination for non-uploading of data of admit card on web site cannot be allowed to be raised after she has taken a second attempt. The petitioner ought to have taken recourse to legal remedy immediately if that was the case. Accordingly, as, admittedly, a third attempt cannot be allowed in the back paper examination, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioner to appear in the second back paper examination of third semester, cannot be accepted. However, as per the Rules as also the decision of the examination committee as noticed above, the petitioner would be entitled to undertake entire third semester examination not just in one or two subjects.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of."
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners are identically situated and therefore, the instant petition be disposed of in same terms.
Learned standing counsel, after going through the judgment dated 22.2.2018 very fairly state that the case of the petitioners herein is identical to that of Aradhana Yadav and he has no objection in case, the instant petition is disposed of in same terms.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the instant petition is also disposed of in terms of judgment dated 22.2.2018 in Writ C No. 61235 of 2017 - Aradhana Yadav Versus State of U.P. and 2 others.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 23.4.2018
AM/-
