Akshay Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 707 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.587 of 2021

.

                           Date of Decision : 29th January, 2021





Akshay Kumar                                                  ...Petitioner.

                           Versus





State of H.P. & others                                             ...Respondents.
Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Addl.A.G with Ms. Seema Sharma and Narender Thakur, Dy.A.G and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Asstt. A.G.

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral).

The petitioner aged 18 years, who passed his matriculation from

Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan, has come up before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to consider his candidature for the post of

CT/SK and to appoint him as such. .

2. The petitioner had passed his matriculation examination (secondary school) from Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan vide annexure P/2. The said Shiksha Sansthan issued him a certificate with Sr.No.36005 and declared him pass in 1st Division. Based on the said certificate, the petitioner applied for the aforesaid post.

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

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

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/2 reveals that it was issued on 24.8.2018. 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. This court clarifies that I have declared the matriculation certificate dated 24.8.2018 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. I am 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.

Dasti copy.

29th January, 2021                          (Anoop Chitkara)




      (Atal)                                 Vacation Judge