VIJAY KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, U.P AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1980-11-82
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 21,1980

VIJAY KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Board Of Technical Education, U.P And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.M.L.Sinha, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the Regulations under the Technical Education Act 20 marks could be awarded to the candidates for games and 30 marks for discipline. The total marks for the same were 50. 40%.of the marks were for participation in games and 60% for discipline. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the Principal deducted all the marks allotted for discipline vide his order dated 14-1-1980. According to the petitioner this order was passed without affording an opportunity to show cause.
(2.) A perusal of the order passed by the Principal (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) states that intimation was sent to the petitioner as well as his guardian but none of them turned up. If this is true the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity to show cause was given to him, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, pointed out that the intimation sent to the petitioner's guardian was received after the impugned order was passed by the Principal, and consequently it cannot be accepted that any proper opportunity to show cause was granted to the petitioner or his guardian. Learned counsel urged that representation to that effect has been made by him to the Secretary, Board of Technical Education, U.P. for decision of the Board, but no decision by the Board has been taken thereon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Principal on that ground too. It would thus appear that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the representation made by the petitioner to the Board against the order of the Principal is not being decided by the Board.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel we find that it is fit case in which a direction should be issued for deciding the representation made by the petitioner against the Principal. We accordingly direct that respondent No. 1 may decide the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.