Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Barkatullah University

Sanjeev Kumar vs Barkatullah University

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 19, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1039751

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjeev Kumar

Advocate Shri. Praveen Chourasiya

Respondent

Barkatullah University

Excerpt

w.p.no.10282/2013 19/06/2013 shri praveen chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners.petitioners who were students of the b.p.ed. courses and were pursuing studies from national post graduate mahavidyalaya, bhopal feel aggrieved of the action of the respondent no.1/ university in not adding their practical marks in the mark-sheet issued in the year 2010-11. it is seen that for the same session in various other institutes for the cours.in question, same error was committed by the university and the practical marks obtained by the student were not added in the original mark-sheet after declaration of the result. as a result, writ petitions were filed and a division bench of this court disposed of the w.p.no.2310/2012 vide order annexure-p5 directing the respondents to include practical marks of the students in accordance with the communication made by the institute, declare the result afresh and issue fresh mark-sheets. keeping in view the directions already issued by this court vide annexure-p5 dated 15.5.2012, this writ petition is also disposed of with identical terms and the directions issued by this court in the case as referred to hereinabove shall apply in the case of the present petitioners also, except for the direction of payment of cost. the direction of payment of cost shall not be applicable in the present case, as the petitioners have approached this court after a period of more than 2 years.with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (rajendra menon) (a.k.sharma) judge judge nd

Full Judgment

W.P.No.10282/2013 19/06/2013 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners who were students of the B.P.Ed.

Courses and were pursuing studies from National Post Graduate Mahavidyalaya, Bhopal feel aggrieved of the action of the Respondent No.1/ University in not adding their practical marks in the mark-sheet issued in the year 2010-11.

It is seen that for the same session in various other institutes for the couRs.in question, same error was committed by the University and the practical marks obtained by the student were not added in the original mark-sheet after declaration of the result.

As a result, writ petitions were filed and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the W.P.No.2310/2012 vide order Annexure-P5 directing the respondents to include practical marks of the students in accordance with the communication made by the institute, declare the result afresh and issue fresh mark-sheets.

Keeping in view the directions already issued by this Court vide Annexure-P5 dated 15.5.2012, this writ petition is also disposed of with identical terms and the directions issued by this Court in the case as referred to hereinabove shall apply in the case of the present petitioners also, except for the direction of payment of cost.

The direction of payment of cost shall not be applicable in the present case, as the petitioners have approached this Court after a period of more than 2 yeaRs.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge nd

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial