Yograj vs State Of H.P And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 111 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.67 of 2021

.

                             Date of Decision : 4th January, 2021





Yograj                                                          ...Petitioner.

                             Versus





State of H.P and others                                              ...Respondent
Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Pranay P. Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G with Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr.

Adarsh K Sharma, Addl. A.Gs.

Ms. Anjali Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral).

The petitioner aged 37 years and who appeared in +2 exam with the 2 nd

respondent, i.e., HPSEB, Dharamshala, has come up before this Court seeking directions to declare his result of final examination.

2. The petitioner had passed his matriculation examination (secondary school) from Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan vide annexure P/3. The said Shiksha Sansthan issued him a certificate with Sr.No.34152 and declared him pass in 1st Division. Based on the said certificate, the petitioner appeared for +2 examination with Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. The grievance of the petitioner is that now the respondent-Board is not declaring his result due to the reasons that he had passed his matriculation from Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. In CWP No.849 of 2019 titled Priyanka Devi Vs. State of H.P and others, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had relied upon the instructions placed on record by the learned counsel for the HPSEB, which revealed that Grameen

.

Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan was recognized during the period from 1.12.2017 to 5.2.2019. A perusal of the matriculation certificate, Annexure P/3 reveals that it was issued on 11.3.2019. Thus, even this certificate was issued

during the period when the said Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan was a recognized institute.

4. Given above, for the purpose of attaining higher education, the said

certificate was valid and thus, we direct respondent No.2-Board to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith. We clarify that we have declared the matriculation certificate dated 11.3.2019 issued by Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi

Shiksha Sansthan valid only for the purpose of acquiring education higher than

the said certificate, which in this case was +2. We are not expressing any opinion about the equivalence certificate for the reasons that once the petitioner acquires

higher education, then there would be no need for him to refer him to the lower examination.

5. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is allowed. Pending

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

(L. Narayana Swamy)

Chief Justice.

4th January, 2021                                   (Anoop Chitkara)
      (mamta)                                            Judge