C.W.P. No.11699 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11699 of 2008 Decided on : 30-10-2008 Murti Devi ....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present:- Mr. OPS Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, A.A.G., Haryana for respondents No.1 & 3. Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, to direct the respondents to give admission to the petitioner in Diploma in Education (in short 'D.Ed.') on the basis of amended result issued on 05.06.2008. The petitioner appeared in the entrance examination conducted for the D.Ed. on 25.05.2008. The petitioner was assigned Roll No.8211166. The result was declared on 27.05.2008. The petitioner was reflected to have obtained 131 marks. The result was revised on 03.06.2008, wherein petitioner was assigned 78 marks. The claim of the petitioner is that the result was re-revised on 05.06.2008, wherein she was again assigned 131 marks. Thus, on the basis of the said marking, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to the D.Ed. C.W.P. No.11699 of 2008 -2- In the reply, it has been pointed out that in fact, the result of the petitioner has swapped with another candidate named Avtar Singh, who appeared under Roll No.8231166. Since the mistake came to the notice of the authorities, the same was corrected on 29.05.2008 and the revised result issued on 03.06.2008. On the basis of revised result, the petitioner's name could not figure amongst the meritorious candidates and hence, was not admitted to the Course in question. In support of the assertion that the results, in fact, have swapped, the respondents have appended the answer- sheets of the petitioner and that of Avtar Singh as Annexure R-2/1 and R- 2/3 respectively. From the perusal of the answer-sheets of the petitioner and that of Avtar Singh, it is apparent that the result swapped on account of similarity in Roll Numbers. Third digit 3 (three) is different from digit 1 (one) in the Roll Number of the petitioner. In view of the above, we do not find that the petitioner can be ordered to be admitted to the D.Ed. on the basis of the said marking. Dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 30th October 2008. (Daya Chaudhary) Monika Judge