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.

A. Hemalatha Vs. Convenor (D.E.O.) District Selection Committee and ors.

A. Hemalatha vs Convenor (D.E.O.) District Selection Committee and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 24, 1995
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/439119

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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 14446 of 1994
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Hemalatha

Advocate S.R. Sanku and N. Gurugopal, Advs.

Respondent

Convenor (D.E.O.) District Selection Committee and ors.

Advocate Govt. Pleader for Education for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and ;T.S. Harnath, Adv. for Respondent No. 3

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226
Reported In
1996(1)ALT566

Excerpt

- .....four days. it is averred in the writ petition specifying the names of the candidates similarly situated as the petitioner that the third respondent had condoned the shortage in attendance in their cases. that apart, when the petitioner had submitted an application for condonation to the fourth respondent, which is not controverted by r-4, the petitioner cannot be blamed on the ground that r-4 did not send the proposal to the third respondent. for the reason that there is a default on the part of the third respondent, the petitioner cannot suffer. in view of the fact that the application made by the petitioner for condonation of shortage of attendance is not received by the university and as there is a further likelihood of this judgment being taken as a precedent, the formality of application being made cannot be dispensed with. 2. to strike a balance and also in the interest of speedy justice because it concerns the educational and further employment carrer of the petitioner, i direct the petitioner to make an application in the prescribed format directly to the third respondent along with the requisite fee and on receipt of the said application by the third respondent, it shall be deemed that the deficiency in attendance is condoned and then there shall be an obligation on the part of the third respondent to declare the result of the examinations written by the petitioner within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said application. if the petitioner is declared as passed, it is needless to mention that the third respondent will issue marks memorandum and also certificate therefor. 3. the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by a student of B.A. for issue of B.Ed., Certificate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared for B.Ed. Examination. It is stated in the counter filed on behalf of the third respondent that the results of the petitioner were not declared on the ground of shortage of attendance. But it is surprising as to why and how the petitioner was allowed to sit for the examination when there was deficiency in attendance. It is normal practice that whenever there is deficiency in attendance, even hall tickets are not issued. But having issued the hall ticket and permitted the petitioner to write the examination, it is too late a day to with hold the results on the ground of deficiency in attendance. Further, the shortage in attendance is only four days. It is averred in the writ petition specifying the names of the candidates similarly situated as the petitioner that the third respondent had condoned the shortage in attendance in their cases. That apart, when the petitioner had submitted an application for condonation to the fourth respondent, which is not controverted by R-4, the petitioner cannot be blamed on the ground that R-4 did not send the proposal to the third respondent. For the reason that there is a default on the part of the third respondent, the petitioner cannot suffer. In view of the fact that the application made by the petitioner for condonation of shortage of attendance is not received by the University and as there is a further likelihood of this Judgment being taken as a precedent, the formality of application being made cannot be dispensed with.

2. To strike a balance and also in the interest of speedy justice because it concerns the educational and further employment carrer of the petitioner, I direct the petitioner to make an application in the prescribed format directly to the third respondent along with the requisite fee and on receipt of the said application by the third respondent, it shall be deemed that the deficiency in attendance is condoned and then there shall be an obligation on the part of the third respondent to declare the result of the examinations written by the petitioner within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said application. If the petitioner is declared as passed, it is needless to mention that the third respondent will issue Marks Memorandum and also certificate therefor.

3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial