IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2424 of 2007 Sanjay Singh Bisht, Son of Sri Kundan Singh Bisht, Resident of H- 7, Type-III, Sector 9-C Group House, P.O. Baur New Tehri Garhwal. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Health & Medical Education and another. … Respondents. Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State respondents. Date August 11, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-10-2007 passed by Chairman/Director General Uttarakhand State Medical Faculty Dehradun, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to register the petitioner in the ongoing process of registration by the State Medical Faculty in pursuance of advertisement dated 11-8-2006. (iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11-8-2006 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) the petitioner had applied before the State Medical Faculty for registration of Lab. Technician. As per advertisement, it was one of the conditions precedent that the candidate must posses Intermediate (10+2) or equivalent examination in Science Group with Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Mathematics before training as well as the candidate must possess two year Lab Technician diploma course. There is no dispute pertaining to first condition that the petitioner has passed the Intermediate examination in Science subjects. The petitioner has filed copy of the mark sheet as well certificate (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) showing that he has passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 2001 in Science subjects from G.I.C. Bagasudhar, Tehri Garhwal. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that in the two-year diploma course (Diploma Medical Laboratory Technology) (for short D.M.L.T.), there had been overlapping of six months’ period when he was in the Intermediate. The respondents-State has filed counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, the State has annexed copy of the Marksheet obtained by the petitioner by the Central Calcutta Medical & Technological Research Institute, Calcutta in respect of Part-I D.M.L.T. Examination as Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit. By a perusal of this mark sheet, it reveals that the Session had been mentioned January 2001 to December 2001. Subsequently, the petitioner has applied for correction and the corrected mark sheet was issued by the concerned Institute, i.e. Central Calcutta Medical & Technological Research Institute, Calcutta. The petitioner has also filed copy of mark sheet of Part II (Clinical Year) Examination as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition and in the mark sheet the Session has been mentioned July 2001 to June 2002. According to the petitioner, in the Part I marksheet, there was a clerical mistake in the period of session and it was wrongly mentioned as January 2001 to December 2001 instead of July 2001 to June 2002. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated inter alia in paragraph 3 (vi) that “the main objection was found in the documentary record of the applicant Sri Sanjay Singh Bisht that the photo copy of his marks sheet of SL.N.4302/2001 of part-I of D.M.L.T. examination denotes the period of training from Jan-2001 to Dec-2001. Photocopy of the marks sheet of the petitioner of Part-I, D.M.L.T. Examination for the Session January 2001- December 2001 and July 2001 to June 2002 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. C.A.4 to this counter affidavit and photocopy of the marks sheet dated 05.07.2001 of Intermediate examination of the petitioner copy whereof is being filed as ANNEXURE NO.C.A.5 to the counter affidavit, denotes that the petitioner was not Intermediate passed at the time of commencement of his D.M.L.T. training, the two years course of his D.M.L.T. was commenced from Jan-2001, where as the petitioner was declared as passed Intermediate, in July-2001. Under the above cited circumstances, it is presumed, either the marks sheet of the first part of D.M.L.T. Examination would be treated as false, fabricated & forged or the marks sheet of his Intermediate examination would be presumed as false.” In the counter affidavit, the averments made in the writ petition have been denied by the State-respondents. The only controversy to be decided in the present writ petition is whether in the Part I marks sheet of D.M.L.T. Examination, by mentioning the incorrect session, i.e. January 2001 to December 2001, which was corrected subsequently, the petitioner is entitled to be eligible for ongoing registration process with the State Medical Faculty. Learned counsel for the petitioner ahs contended that there is no dispute regarding the Part II Examination period. In the Part II (Clinical Year) Examination, the session has been correctly mentioned July 2002 to June 2003. The respondent no.2-State Medical Faculty did not consider this aspect of the matter that there was no dispute of the period of session in the Part II (Second Year) of the two-year diploma course of D.M.L.T. undergone by the petitioner. If the period of session, as has been wrongly mentioned in the Part I Examination of D.M.L.T. was correct, then certainly the period of Part II (Clinical Year) Examination might have been mentioned likewise, i.e. January 2002 to December 2002. By a perusal of the corrected marks sheet, lit reveals that the Session has been corrected in the marks sheet as July 2001 to June 2002 and now after correction, the period of six months does not overlap the Session of Intermediate Examination passed by the petitioner. Learned additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that after the correction of marks sheet, the respondent no. 2 wrote a letter to the institute concerned but the reply from the said Institute is awaited. By the order of this Court, interim relief was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10-12-2007 and 11-1-2008 to provisionally appear in the examinations and the petitioner had appeared in the examinations including practical and viva. The result was not declared because of the interim order of this Court. Since the correction was made by the concerned institute in the Part I B.M.L.T. Examination marks sheet of the petitioner and after the correction there is no overlapping of the session. In the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that correction has already been made in the marks sheet by the concerned institute, the petitioner is entitled to participate in the ongoing process of registration with the State Medical Faculty, if the petitioner has passed in the written examination. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 is directed to declare the result of the examinations of the petitioner and in case the petitioner is found to have passed the examinations, he be permitted to participate in the ongoing process of registration with the State Medical Faculty. The impugned order dated 31-10-2007 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed. However, it is provided that if the reply is received form the Central Calcutta Medical & Technological Research Institute, Calcutta by the respondent no. 2 that the said Institute has not issued the corrected marks sheet in favour of the petitioner, the respondents may file recall application before this Court. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP