IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition 1193 of 2010 (M/S) Bhumika Singh D/o Bhupendra Singh ..……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand Sashan Dehradun and others ……… Respondents Mr. Vinay Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Vinay Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The petitioner appeared in the Uttarakhand Pre-Medical Test, 2010 as a female O.B.C. candidate. It is alleged that there were two papers. The first paper comprised of Physics and Chemistry and the second paper was of Botany and Geology. It is alleged that the provisional results were declared by the University in its official website on 10th June, 2010 and that the final results were declared on 17th June, 2010 again in the website. The petitioner came to know about the final results and, upon checking the marks alongwith the official answer key issued by the University, found that the petitioner was entitled to 14 more marks in the first paper and one more mark in the second paper, i.e. total of 15 marks and, accordingly, applied for correction of her marks on 25th June, 2010. The application for correction of the results remained pending and, accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to rectify her results. 2 A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating that the petitioner has missed the boat for the correction of the results, and that, after the declaration of the final results, it was no longer possible for the University to consider the request of the petitioner for the correction of her results. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was made clear that pursuant to the declaration of the provisional results, a candidate could apply for the correction of the results within seven days from the date of the publication of the provisional result alongwith a deposit of Rs.2,000/- by means of a demand draft. It was also made clear that in the event the results of the candidate was corrected, the amount of Rs.2,000/- would be refunded. The respondents submitted that the petitioner did not apply for the correction of her result pursuant to the declaration of the provisional result and, consequently, no application for the correction of the results could be entertained after the declaration of the final list. The respondents have annexed a broucher annexure-1 to the counter affidavit which indicates that all information issued by the University would be published in the news paper and that the students were also advised to check the notice board as well as the official website of the University for necessary information. In the present case, the provisional results as well as the final results was not published in any newspaper and that the provisional results was only declared in the official website of the University. The petitioner has contended that she is a resident of a village Chanfi, District Nainital which is not on the main road and where internet facilities are not available and, consequently, when the petitioner came to know after the declaration of the final results that she applied for the correction of her result. 3 The fact that the petitioner’s village is located in a remote area is not disputed but what is disputed is that even in this village there is an availability of internet facility. Be that as it may. The fact that the results were only declared in the website of the University is not sufficient for the communication of the results to the candidates. As per the broucher, the University was required to publish the results in the newspaper which has not been done. Consequently, the benefit that the petitioner was unaware of the declaration of the provisional results has to tilt in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be non-suited only on the short ground that she did not apply for the correction of the results within seven days from the declaration of the provisional list. Since, the provisional list was not published in any newspaper, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not applying for correction of the results. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pass orders on the application of the petitioner for the correction of her results. The petitioner will appear before the Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun/respondent No.3 on 26th June, 2010 alongwith the carbon copy of the answer sheet (O.M.R. sheet) alongwith a draft of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the Financial Controller of U.T.U., Dehradun. The Vice Chancellor will consider the petitioner’s request for the correction of her results himself or will constitute a committee for this purpose on the same day. In the event, the petitioner’s result are required to be rectified, the same shall be done within 48 hrs. The Vice Chancellor or the Committee constituted by him will give full opportunity to the petitioner to present her case. In the event, the results of the petitioner is modified, she will be suitably placed in the merit list and admission would be accorded accordingly. 4 Certified copy of this order shall be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 48 hrs. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 20.07.2010 Shiv 5