Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jyoti vs All India Council Of Technical ... on 21 March, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041243
CWP-22683-2018(O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:041243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-22683-2018(O&M)
Date of decision : 21.03.2024
Jyoti
... Petitioner
Versus
All India Council for Technical Education and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate and
Mr.Rohit Duggal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sahil, Advocate for
Mr.Nitin Kaushal, Advocate
for respondents no.1 and 2.
Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate
for respondent no.3.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing respondents no.1 and 2 to re-evaluate the answer sheet / result
(Annexure P-9) of the petitioner for Deemed University Examination (2018)
for PG Degree conducted by respondent (AICTE) after awarding one mark
to the petitioner for duplicate pair of question nos.31 & 51 as one mark has
already been awarded to all the candidates for duplicate pair of question
nos.37 & 55.
2. On 11.03.2024, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041243
CWP-22683-2018(O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:041243
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner, as per the case of the respondent authorities, has secured 167
marks out of 420 marks which comes to 39.76% whereas passing marks is
40% and has submitted that the respondent authorities have rounded off
the marks of two another candidates, who have also secured 39.76%, to
40% and had declared them qualified. For the said purpose, he has
referred to a document which is taken on record and marked as "Mark A"
and a copy of the same has been supplied to learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 who prays for a short adjournment to get
instructions in the matter.
Adjourned to 21.03.2024.
To be taken up at 12:00 pm.
11.03.2024"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case
of the petitioner is on an absolutely similar footing as that of Sudhir Mohan
and Chandra Bhan Kapil, in who's case, the percentage secured by both of
them i.e., 39.76% (as is also the case of the petitioner), has been rounded off
and has been written as 40% by respondent no.1-institute in pursuance of
the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court passed in CWP-1192-
2019 titled as "Kanhya Lal Sharma vs. All India Council for Technical
Education" decided on 25.11.2019 which was followed by the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in decision dated 08.11.2021 passed in Writ
Petition (M/S) no.2580 of 2020 titled as "Shri Sudhir Mohan & another
vs. All India Council for Technical Education". It is further submitted that
the petitioner also deserves the same relief as has been granted to Sudhir
Mohan and Chandra Bhan Kapil by respondent no.1 vide its decision "Mark
A". Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he would submit a
representation bringing out the said facts in the same and respondent no.1
be directed to consider and decide the same after taking into consideration
the judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in the
case of Kanhya Lal Sharma (supra) which was followed by the High Court
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041243
CWP-22683-2018(O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:041243
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the case of Sudhir Mohan (supra) and also the
decision "Mark A" taken by respondent no.1 in the case of Sudhir Mohan
and Chandra Bhan Kapil.
4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that
they would consider and decide the representation after taking into
consideration the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court passed in
the case of Kanhya Lal Sharma (supra) which was followed by the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the case of Sudhir Mohan (supra) and
also after taking into consideration the decision "Mark A" taken by
respondent no.1.
5. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
i) It would be open to the petitioner to give a representation
to respondent no.1 bringing out the detailed facts as have been
argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and have been
noticed in the earlier part of this order.
ii) In case of the petitioner doing so, the competent
authority of respondent no.1 would consider the said
representation within a period of six weeks from the date of the
receipt of the representation and while considering the
representation, would take into consideration the judgment of
the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Kanhya Lal
Sharma (supra) which was followed by the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in the case of Sudhir Mohan (supra)
and also the decision "Mark A" taken by respondent no.1 in
the case of Sudhir Mohan and Chandra Bhan Kapil and in case,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041243
CWP-22683-2018(O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:041243
the case of the petitioner is covered by the said judgment and
decision of respondent no.1, then, similar relief would be
granted to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of in view of the
abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 21, 2024
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
