Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 28.08.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 28 August, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:29089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 13887 of 2025
Decided on: 28.08.2025
Mahima Verma and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioners : Mr. Kunal Mehta and Mohit Thakur,
Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr.Pushpender Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General for respondents No.
1 and 2.
: Mr. Lal Singh Mehta, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional
Advocate General, Mr. Lal Singh Mehta, learned Counsel and Mr.
Deepak Sharma, learned Counsel, accept notice on behalf of
respondents No. 1 and 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4,
respectively.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners, who have
appeared in the written examination of B.Ed. course conducted by
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:29089
.
the respondent-University under ICDEOL system have approached
this Court with the prayer that the respondent-University be
directed to declare their results as for want of declaration of their
results, they are unable to submit their applications for the post of
TGT, which have been advertised by respondent No. 3 and last date
for applying where for is 30th of August, 2025.
3. As the Court was given the impression that but for the
declaration of said result, the petitioners were eligible to participate
in the process that stood initiated to appoint TGTs, the Court in the
morning session of the day, directed learned Counsel for the
respondent-University to have immediate instructions as to why the
result of the petitioners was not being declared.
4. On this, learned Counsel for the respondent-University
has obtained instructions from the Registrar-University, which are
taken on record. On the request of learned Counsel for the
respondent-University, these instructions are treated as response to
the petition and relevant portion of the same is quoted herein below
for ready reference:-
"1. That it is submitted, in the B.Ed. programme being run
through Distance mode (CDOE/ICDOEL), H.P. University,
Shimla, admission given to the candidates twice in year te.
January July batch in terms of the guidelines of the UGC
(DEB)-2020. There is Annual examination system in Distance
2025:HHC:29089
.
mode, whereas in regular mode. there is semester end
examination system.
2. That the reasons for non-declaration of B.Ed.
(CDOE/ICDEOL) batch September, 2023-2025 is because of
ongoing school teaching practice duration of two months for
2nd year, for which time given to students is from 4.08.2025
to 28.10.2025. After successful completion of two months
teaching practice, there shall be final teaching practice
examinations (250 marks) in the 1 week of November, 2025.
Thereafter only, result of B.Ed. Programme September, 2023 -
2025 batch will be declared. It is relevant to mention here
that two months teaching practice is a mandatory part of
B.Ed. programme curriculum as per NCTE norms.
3. Apart from this, it is submitted that whereas in regular
mode the student undergo their Final Teaching practice
examinations during 3rd semester and in Distance mode, the
students will complete their final teaching practice at the end
of B.Ed. 2" year.
It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that the aforementioned instructions may kindly be taken on
record in the interest of law and justice as prayed for."
5. It is evident from the instructions that it is not as if
upon declaration of the result of the written test, which has been
held in July, 2025, the petitioners would have completed their B.Ed.
course. In fact, in terms of the instructions, the petitioners in
2025:HHC:29089
.
addition to the said written examination have to successfully
complete two months teaching practice which has already
commenced from 4th of August, 2025 and shall continue till 28th of
August, 2025 and after successful completion of two months
teaching practice, there again shall be a final teaching practice
examination of 250 marks in the 1st week of November, 2025 and
only thereafter the result of the B.Ed. Programme for the academic
session 2023-2025 shall be declared. It is also mentioned in the
instructions that two months teaching practice is a mandatory part
of B.Ed. programmed curriculum as per NCTE norms.
6. In the backdrop of said instructions, this Court perused
the averments made in the writ petition and perusal thereof
demonstrates that the petitioners have not approached the Court
with clean hands. They have not spelled out in the writ petition that
the declaration of the result of the examination in which they have
participated in July, 2025 does not render them candidates who can
be termed to have successfully completed the B.Ed. Course. It has
been concealed in the petition that the petitioners were undergoing a
mandatory two months teaching practice in terms of the NCTE
norms and thereafter, there shall be a final teaching practice
examination of 250 marks and it is only thereafter that the result of
B.Ed. Programme was to be declared.
Therefore, as the present petition but natural is
2025:HHC:29089
.
premature and as no reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioners, can be
granted to them, the present petition is dismissed. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
August 28, 2025
(narender)
