Judgment:
W.P. No.3381/2013 03.04.2013 Shri K.L. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Tabrej Sheikh, Advocate for the respondent No.3. The prayer of the petitioner in this petition is for the declaration of the result for 2009-2010 of B.Ed. Examination. It is submitted by the parties that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.15025/2011 Smt. Vartika Tripathi vs. State of Mahdya Pradesh and others, by which a Division Bench of this Court, considering the similar controversy, decided the matter by an order dated 07.08.2012, which reads thus:- "By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against respondent no.3 Registrar, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, to declare her result of the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) examination for the academic session 2009-2010.
2. The petitioner intending to pursue the course of B.Ed. submitted an online application for admission to the Department of Higher Education, State of Madhya Pradesh, on 20.2.2010. The State Government, after processing the application, allotted a seat vide Annexure P2 dated 21.4.2010 to the petitioner in respondent no.4 Mata Vaishno Devi B.Ed. College, Bhopal, (in short, “the Institution”.). The admission of petitioner in the Institution for B.Ed. course was for the academic session 2009-10. The Institution was admittedly recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education. The petitioner after attending the classes for the academic session in the institution was allowed to appear in the written examination held by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya on 31.12.2010. It is not in dispute that the admission card, Annexure P5, for B.Ed. examination was issued to the petitioner by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya. According to the petitioner, although she performed extremely well in the B.Ed. examination, respondent no.3 has declined to declare her result on the ground that the affiliation of the institution was withdrawn vide order dated 29.3.2008 from the academic session 2007-2008 onwards.
3. The petitioner submits that she was unconditionally given admission for B.Ed. course in the Institution through online counseling held by the State Government and thereafter was also allowed to appear in the examination by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya. She, therefore, had legitimate expectation that her result will also be declared. The grievance of petitioner is that withholding of her result by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, is wholly unfair and unreasonable.
4. The Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, in its reply, has stated that as affiliation of the Institution in which the petitioner was given admission was withdrawn from the academic session 2007-2008 her result cannot be declared.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given admission in the Institution by the State Government through online counseling. It is also not in dispute that the Institution was approved for conducting B.Ed. course for the academic session 2009-2010 by the National Council for Teacher Education. There is even no denial by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya that it did not issue admission card, Annexure P5, to the petitioner for appearing in the main examination. Thus, the petitioner is not found to be at fault in any manner from the stage of taking admission in the Institution till the examination held by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya. If the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya had withdrawn the affiliation of the Institution it should not have issued the admission card for examination to the petitioner and allowed her to appear in the same. The fault, therefore, lies more on the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya. In the fact situation of the case, we are of the view that at this stage it would be wholly unfair and unjust to deny the petitioner a degree of B.Ed.
6. We accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya to immediately declare the result of petitioner of B.Ed. examination."
As the controversy is identical and the aforesaid judgment is applicable in the present case, we dispose of this petition in terms of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vartika Tripathi (supra). The aforesaid directions shall be applicable in this case mutatis mutandis. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D. Rathi) Judge Judge psm