Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 249 of 2021
Date of decision: January 07, 2021.
Sanjay Kumar. ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the petitioner : Ms. Srishti Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, AG with Mr. Vinod
Thakur, Mr. Vikas Rathore, Mr. Shiv Pal
Manhans, Addl. AGs, Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Ms. Seema Sharma and Mr.
Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Dy. AGs, for
respondent No. 1.
Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2.
Nemo for respondent No. 3.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment? yes.
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents number 2 to declare the result of the
.
petitioner i.e. Annexure P-6.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to implement the order passed in CWP
No. 849 of 2019 i.e. Annexure P-7 qua the petitioner
thereby declaring the result of the petitioner."
2. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed his
matriculation examination held in December, 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 3 rd
respondent with the Himachal Pradesh Board of School
Exudation, i.e. respondent No. 2.
3. However, similar issue came up before this Court in
CWP No. 849 of 2019 , titled Pryanka Devi vs. State of H.P.
and others , decided on 10.09.2019 (Annexure P-7), 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-6) within a period of two
weeks from today.
7. to
The instant writ petition stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms, so also the pending application)s), if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
Judge.
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
Judge.
7 th January, 2020,
( vs)
