y I ll.-fi.^'y! .. l[i^''',»'^~.-•••'" ^%'-'"' '^-•'"' 1 y<? BfiFQRE THE HIGH COURT QF CHMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl HO.^l'Rl 2aQ9 NnTITrONER Ku. Heena D^ Shri Sudhir Kurn^r aged about 19 years, R/o Village- Asm, Pqst-KhertHN Bazaar, Tahsil Dondi Lohara, Dlstt. Durg (C.G) Student of D.Ed. District Educaflpn and Training Institute Nagrl Districl Dhamtari (C.G.) /I ,<•• .^^s 3<rSS% ?^€^ VERSUS »6ftBONDENTS ;1. . StateofChhattisgarh Throygh - theSeGretat'y, Publie Ihstruction and Schoal Education Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. y\- ! •: ' 2. Principat District Education and Training institute Nagri District Dhamtari (C.G.) JffiJt PETITION ONDBR ARTICLE 2226 OF THE CONSTttUTIQN OPINDIA. 1. Particulars of the Petitionec 11/ iiill< Bfe:^ :;^ ^ ^f-^' tte MIGHGQ^RI'QB^iaH/Kffil^^RH^ PETITIQNER V\/Rni'RE"n'n©N^)NQ.5?l%Qp2ei09- Ku.Heena RESPONDENTS ^Versus^^'.,:.'"-''''.' ;••' ;.:1...;. :. ' §tateofGhhattisgarh&another (Writ Petiti(}nlynderArticle.226»f'flre;Consti^ Sing]eBentth:Mpn"b1eSttriSafishK.AghilTotn,J. Present:- ;Shri^K.Tiwari,^dvocatefortlie p^fifioner. ; . ^ ShriA.V.Shridhar, Panel L-awyerforfheState/responderrts. JORDERAfORAl.) • ...'•l.-,:::.\.. ,':..1'1:..'- •: . :l;:.:^(F%ssedlo thi5;22nd(aay'ofJung,''20l6^ 1..; Leamed CQUhselappearing fhe petitioneF:seeRsjqyas^^^^^ ^ the.order datedr 1;9/8/20@9'.'(jAnTi®xure' F^3^,:'w^ .provisio^SI;aflmissi6nifof;.fh^'pietffi:oneF^% •i::'/year)'^'v^g^.l:1:;ari6^1)S|3;?Mn?':^|^u) lnstructiQrasfr6rhthe!Kigher!QffiEials:':''Y':-'l;'^'^ 2. . The irtdisputable;'facfs, in flUifsRell1, are;1BattKe'^fp®i-ieriwas ,fQund:eli3i61e;foraclmi§§i(:m;^ ®€ffi't:^ . .could hQt:appear irt'ftte'coLti^eltng,^ appgar6d on . a' ;sut:)^(^§nfi''date TNereafter.^the resp6nd^Ht'iN@i2^dniitte8;^ i ,'D;Ed !c6yree'^6y6ar)ii ?fh®'®t^ 1nstitUteY:'Na^i';;Bisffict^'Dh^mi^n^l^a^@^are^ 'case; thslt l'ffle . provisional^:atlrr(is"Si@n'^^ '^—-; • • • '..•"•.. ::-^.. •. .' • '.'. '.. • . :'-'" ••'...'••.•.•'.•;-••'•'.'••••^ '•'.. \.." •:' .:".'.'. •: •••''• .: '. 1:,- . •.'^- .Instri^ionsiW^peribr^offieials.i^ -, Bythe'respondentNo.ZTgr^ can(%lin^'tH!e^tilii|iF(gri^!ajd;FfiiF§siG> {Q:3 ^cl; coia^e. w. fc' ^ Learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner sabmits that if the required instruction does not come witbintime,it may be treated as deemed sanetion. hlowevef; on aGGouht of failure on the part ofsenior offiGers, the admission could hot have been cancelled to cause loss and Rrejudicse to the petitioner. Shri Shridhar, learfred GOuhsel appearing fbr fhe State/ respondent submits that the admission ofthe petitioner was provisional, as she did not appear in the counseling, which wasscheduledon 27/7/2009. SubsequenlcounSeling,on her representation, cahncit be treated as proper counseling; therefbre, her admission was not in acGOrdanGeiwith rules. Though the petitioner was allowey t6 attencf classes after provisiOnal admission from 7/8/2009 Eindirnnigdiatelywitftin 15days,theimpMgneclorder^S|iaSsed. Having heard learned courisel apipe&ring ftir th^ parties, perused the pleadings and cfocuments appended appears that the admission was cancelled not eirt qiGcount 6f any defect or non-compliance 6f any prQyisions oif law. In the case on hand, the petitioner Gaulci not apRear on the fixed date ofcounseling;howeyer,driherrep|'esentationshe was allowed to appear fdr eounseling on j6/8/2R09. The counselihg is not for the purpose ofany Seryfiny; But for.the; purpose of verifiGation 6f thie testimonials; Tnereiafter, the petitionerWas admitted to B.Ed. eourse (firsfyear) instructions fronn the superior officers iand jif th^ superipr offjcers fajled to giye iristruction withifi piresfiribecl thereto^ it subjeetto timei, ie asliok ^/ cancellation of her admission for want of instructibns fr@m superiorofficerisnbtjust.properandlegah 7. There are no other reasons for GancellatiQn of hgr admissioh excepf the responderit No.2 eould not receive insfruGfrons from the superior offieers. The reasoris assigned in the impugned order dated 19/8/2009 arenot iri aGCordance wifh law and unsustainable from any angle. AGCprdingly, the impugned letter dated 19/8/2009 is quashed. 8 Ih fhe result, the writ petition is allowed. N6 order asto Gdsts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 'KS