Back
2026 Supreme(UK) 15
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Shweta Bhandari And Another - Petitioners
Versus
Hnb Garhwal University Central Srinagar And Another - Respondents
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2105 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel
Educational institutions must comply with policy amendments for reservation; Universities cannot withhold results based on internal disputes or technicalities if admissions were previously approved.
Headnote:(A) Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 - 103rd Constitutional Amendment - Admission and result declaration - Petitioners, who completed their B.Ed. course under EWS category, sought direction for result declaration after admission limit was exceeded by respondent University. Court emphasized the immediate benefit of policy amendments and rejected the University’s argument regarding affiliation requirement. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Mandamus issued to direct statutory body for compliance with regulatory requirements. (Paras 16-17)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners successfully completed a two-year B.Ed. course; respondent University withheld results due to exceeding admission limits without proper affiliation.
Findings of Court:
Respondent University’s claim regarding the necessity of an affiliation letter contradicts their pre-approval of admissions.
Issues: The legality of withholding results due to exceeding student limit and the requirements of affiliation for admitting students.
Ratio Decidendi: Admission under EWS was lawful; University cannot withhold results based on internal disputes.
Result: Writ petition allowed; University directed to declare results within 15 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeking declaration of exam results. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the admission and result declaration process. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the necessity of result declaration. (Para 15) |
| 4. writ petition allowed based on the circumstances presented. (Para 16) |
| 5. mandamus for result declaration within 15 days. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.1 to declare the final result (including the 4th semester) of petitioners of two years B.Ed. Course and if successful, award the degree forthwith.
2. The facts in brief are that petitioners appeared in B.Ed. entrance examination conducted by respondent No.1-University and they were successful and found place in the merit list of said examination. Petitioners took admission in the respondent No.2-institution under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category as directed by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, wherein, Institutions were directed to implement the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, whereby, reservation was provided to Economically Weaker Sections of the Society. Petitioners successfully completed two years B.Ed. Course. After completion of the B.Ed. Course, respondent No.2 has sent the marks of the petitioners to respondent No.1-University to declare their result, but the same was not declared saying that respondent No.2 was only permitted to induct 100 students and since petitioners were beyond the limit of 100 students, therefore, their result cannot be declared.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.1-University for not declaring their result, petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court.
4. Counter affidavits have been filed by both the respondents.
5. Respondent No.2-institution in its counter affidavit stated that Ministry of Human Resource Development issued an Office Memorandum dated 17.01.2019 annexed as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit. Clause 2(c) of the said O.M. is provides as under:-
“Clause 2(c):- Every Central Educational Institution shall, with the prior approval of the appropriate authority (as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006), increase the number of seats over and above its annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty so that the number of seats available, excluding those reserved for the persons belonging to the EWSs, is not less than the number of such seats available, in each category, for the academic session immediately preceding the date of the coming into force of this O.M.”
6. The said notification contained a Schedule and in the Schedule, name of respondent No.1-University is at S.No.39. Respondent No.2 further submits that the NCTE also issued a letter dated 08.07.2019, addressing to all Principal Secretaries of State Governments/UTs, all Vice-Chancellors of State and Central Universities and all SCERTs Directors, requesting them to implement 103rd Constitutional Amendment in respect of the reservation policy for admission in teacher education institutions without affecting the percentage reservations of SC/ST/ OBC/General.
7. Apart from that, pursuant to the aforesaid O.M. dated 17.01.2019, respondent No.1-University under the hand of its Registrar had written a letter dated 24.09.2019 to the President of Association of Self-finance Institutes Uttarakhand to implement the letter issued by the NCERT dated 08.07.2019, which was issued regarding the implementation of 103rd Constitutional Amendment.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that it is only after these correspondences, respondent No.2 inducted 106 students including the petitioners in two years B.Ed. Course 2019-21.
9. It is further contended by him that since it was a question of implementation of 103rd Constitutional Amendment
