Chattisgarh High Court
Ritika Singh vs Guru Ghasidas University on 27 October, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
W.P.(C) No. 4321 of 2021
Ritika Singh D/o Krishna Kumar Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o House No 1090
Colony RTI Ward No 01 Bishrampur, District- Surajpur. Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
Guru Ghasidas University Guru Ghasidas University, Through Its Registrar, Koni
Bilaspur 495009
---- Respondent
27/10/2021 Ms. Shriya Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Ms. Soumya Rai,
Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on petition.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the
advertisement (Annexure-P/1) published by the respondent, the petitioner
presented her application form to the respondent for admission in the
course of B.Sc. (Forestry) and in the course B.Sc (Honours) - Rural
Technology. The first merit list has been published by the respondent
mentioning the name of the candidates who have been granted admission,
in which the name of the petitioner is not reflected.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has the
eligibility to be admitted to the course for which she has applied. The
condition for eligibility as mentioned in the advertisement that the candidate
must have minimum 50% of the aggregate marks. In the allotment list of
the respondent issued for the second-round, the marks obtained by the
petitioner is shown as 72, which is more than the marks obtained by the
other candidates who have been given admission in the first list.
The eligibility on the basis of the minimum percentage is also
present in the case of the petitioner. Although, the percentage of marks
scored by her in the Higher Secondary Examination, 2020 was less than
50%, but the petitioner appeared for improvement of her performance
regarding which, policy decision has been taken by the Central Board of
Secondary Education by the memo dated 16.3.2021 (Annexure-P/5). It is
clearly mentioned in the policy that in case, any candidate appears in the
examination for improvement of performance then the better of two marks
obtained in the subject will be considered for declaration of results. The
petitioner has improved and secured better marks in some of the subjects,
therefore, on the basis of the policy mentioned herein-above, by taking into
consideration the better obtained marks, the total percentage of the
petitioner would be 51.6.%. Hence, denial of admission to the petitioner for
the course applied is erroneous, discriminatory and arbitrary. Therefore,
the prayer is made to admit the petition and for grant of interim relief.
Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Delhi High Court in
the case of Nikhil Sharma vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 10612 of 2017 and in the case of
Sanyam Gupta vs. Central Board of Secondary Education in W.P.(C)
No. 4403 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions and
submits that the complete brochures of the courses advertised by the
respondent has not been produced. The petitioner has secured less than
50% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination, 2020. In the
compartment examination, the petitioner has performed similarly and her
marks obtained are showing less than 50%. It is further submitted that the
policy of CBSC as mentioned in Annexure-P/5 is not applicable to the
current year. Hence, the petition be dismissed and the interim application
may also be rejected.
In reply, it is again submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has clearly improved in compartment examination, therefore, she
should not be denied admission by the respondent.
Considered on the submissions. The policy of CBSC by memo
dated 16.3.2021 in Annexure-P/5 is clear that the better of two marks
obtained in the subject in which the candidates has appeared for
improvement will be considered for declaration of results.
The copy of the result as declared by CBSE has not been produced
and the mark-sheet of the marks obtained also have not been produced by
the petitioner's side. The calculation made on plain paper for reference of
this Court cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, I am of this view that
at present, the prayer as made in the interim relief cannot be allowed.
Therefore, I.A. No.1 of 2021, an application for grant of interim relief
is rejected.
Respondent is represented.
Time is granted for filing the reply.
List this case after two weeks.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nimmi
