SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(AP) 863

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
A.Hemalatha - Appellant
Versus
Convenor (D.E.O.) District Selection Committee, Chittoor Dist. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-24-95

The court balanced the interest of the petitioner and the need for speedy justice by directing the petitioner to apply directly for condonation of attendance deficiency, and upon receipt, the results would be obligated to be declared within 7 days.

Headnote:

B. Ed Certificate - Writ Petition - The court directed the petitioner to make an application for condonation of attendance deficiency directly to the third respondent, and upon receipt, the deficiency would be deemed condoned, and the third respondent would be obligated to declare the results within 7 days.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a student of B.A., filed a Writ Petition for the issue of a B. Ed Certificate, as the results were withheld due to a shortage of attendance.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the petitioner to make an application for condonation of attendance deficiency directly to the third respondent, and upon receipt, the deficiency would be deemed condoned, and the third respondent would be obligated to declare the results within 7 days.

Issues: Shortage of attendance, withholding of results, condonation application, and speedy justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the interest of the petitioner and the need for speedy justice by directing the petitioner to apply directly for condonation of attendance deficiency, and upon receipt, the results would be obligated to be declared within 7 days.

Final Decision: The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no costs imposed.

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 indispute that the petitioner appeared for B. Ed. Examination. Itis 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 employement 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top