Surya Suresh vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha … on 4 December, 2015

% 04.12.2015

1. Issue notice to the respondents.
2. Mr. Kalra accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
3. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 says that he does not wish to
file a counter affidavit as he has obtained necessary instructions from the
concerned authority i.e. respondent no.1.
4. Since the relief prayed for concerns respondent no.1, notice is not
required to be issued to respondent no.2 and 3.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that she sat for the Common Admission
Test conducted by respondent no.1 for B.Ed. course, relevant for the
academic session 2015-2017.
5.1 It is the petitioner’s case that she qualified the exam and was granted
provisional admission. The grant of provisional admission to the petitioner
was pivoted on the petitioner filing the result of her graduation course which

WP(C) 11249/2015 page 1 of 2
was to be declared by the School of Open Learning, University of Delhi.
5.2 The petitioner claims that the result was received only on 09.11.2015.
5.3 I may only note that in paragraph 4 of the petition, the date of
declaration of the result is given as 09.10.2015 though in paragraph 5 of the
petition, the date set out is 09.11.2015. In any case, the delay in depositing
the graduation result is not on account of the petitioner.
5.4 Since, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 says that the petitioner
is otherwise eligible to sit for the first semester exams, a direction is issued
to that effect. The petitioner will be permitted to sit for the first semester
examination in respect of the remaining exams, to be held from 05.12.2015.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*