AJAY BHANOT
Adarsh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the array of parties.
2. By the order dated 13.03.2018 the candidature of the petitioner for the B.T.C. Course (Batch-2015) has been cancelled. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.03.2018 in the instant writ petition.
3. The petitioner was admitted to the 3rd Semester B.T.C. Course (Batch-2015). He passed the 1st and 2nd Semester examinations of the B.T.C. Course (Batch 2015). The petitioner was promoted and began to attend the classes of the 3rd Semester of the B.T.C. course. The order impugned was passed during the 3rd Semester of the B.T.C. course. Consequently, the studies of the petitioner were interrupted.
4. The order dated 13.03.2018 records that an enquiry into the validity of the candidature of the petitioner was instituted on the foot of a complaint made by one Vinod Pratap Singh. The enquiry found that the petitioner had passed the B.A. IIIrd Year as an institutional candidate from the Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur University in the subject of Hindi and Geography. The order dated 13.03.2018, then opines, since the petitioner h
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj and Ors. Vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Ors.
All India SC and ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors.
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Anr. v. Ramjee
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors.
Gorkha Security Services Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Suvarna Board Mills and Anr.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.