Bali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1074 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 CWP No.749 of 2021

                                          Decided on: 12th February, 2021
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bali Ram




                                                                                     .

                                                                                  .....Petitioner
                                                 Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                                                  .....Respondents
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram





    Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner:                 Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate.

    For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid & Mr. Arvind
                         Sharma, Addl. AGs with Mr. Raju Ram
                         Rahi & Mr. Amit Dhumal, Dy. AGs, for
                         respondent No.1.


                                        Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate, for
                                        respondent No.2.
                                   (Through Video Conferencing)




    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, learned Deputy

Advocate General and Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned

Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on

behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively. In view of

nature of order being passed, no notice is required to be

issued to respondent No.3.

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?

2. The writ petition has been filed for grant of

following substantive reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents number 2 to declare the result of the son of the petitioner i.e. Annexure P-

.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to

implement the order passed in CWP No.849 of 2019 i.e. Annexure P-8 qua the son of the petitioner thereby declaring the result of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem

that the dispute raised in this petition is squarely covered

by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP

No.5815 of 2020, titled Rupali Versus State of H.P. &

ors., decided on 18.12.2020, wherein relying upon

judgment dated 10.09.2019 rendered in CWP No.849 of

2019, titled Priyanka Devi Versus State of H.P. &

others, it was held as under:-

"2. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed her matriculation examination held in October-November, 2018 as per Annexure P-3 from respondent No.3 i.e. "Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi

Shikshan Sansthan". The only hurdle in not declaring the result of the petitioner is on account of non-recognition of 3rd

respondent with the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, i.e. respondent No.2.

3. However, similar issue came up before this Court in CWP No.849 of 2019, titled Priyanka Devi vs. State of H.P. and

others, decided on 10.09.2019 (Annexure P-8), wherein learned standing counsel for respondent No.2-Board, had placed on record written instructions, which revealed that during the period from 01.12.2017 to 05.02.2019, "Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shikshan Sansthan" i.e. respondent No.3 was duly recognized with the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education i.e. respondent No.2.

4. Therefore, once the petitioner has appeared for matriculation examination during the period when respondent No.3 was recognized by respondent No.2, the petitioner was rightly admitted in 10+2 examination by respondent No.2.

5. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no impediment in not declaring the result of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to declare the result of the petitioner for 10+2 examination (Annexure P-7) within a period of two weeks from today."

.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed

of with a direction to respondent No.2 to declare the result

of the son of the petitioner for 10+2 examination (Annexure

P-7) within a period of two weeks from today. Pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

    February 12, 2021
         Mukesh
                                   to               Jyotsna Rewal Dua
                                                      Vacation Judge