- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) IN spite of stop order dated 17-11-2000 no counter affidavit has been filed by Standing Counsel. The apex Court in the case of Bir Singh Chauhan v. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (2) SCC (Labour and Service) 1447, has held as under: - "we wanted to examine the record to ascertain whether there is any substantial case against the appellant. The respondents have neither filed counter nor produced the record. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to accept the case of the appellant that he is entitled to be considered for promotion under the Rules. We direct the Government to consider his case for promotion on the basis of his service record within four months from the receipt of this order. While doing so, the Government with exclude the material relating to his inspection report. " A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Collector, Kanpur and others,1997 (2) SCC (Labour and Service) 1447, has held as under: - "in the absence of counter affidavit, the Court is left with no choice but to accept the averments made in the petition to be correct. " Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that his name was wrongly mentioned in the mark sheet of High School examination which was corrected and submitted before respondents along with representation made in pursuance of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 50763 of 1999. The corrected mark sheet showing the correct name of the petitioner as Chandra Kant Pathak has illegally not been accepted by the respondents. The petitioner's quality point mark is 57. 14 whereas the last selected candidates in general category has obtained 52. 99 marks. The controversy involved in the present case is covered by decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39687 of 2000, Sunil Kumar v. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan Parishad, U. P. Lucknow and others, decided on 11-9-1999. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31-3-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 cannot be upheld.
(3.) IN the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 31-3-2000, Annexure 13 to the writ petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to accept the mark sheet of the High School Examination of the petitioner which shows his name as Chandra Kant Pathak and calculate his quality point marks and admit him in Special BTC course within a period of one month from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 1. Petition allowed. .;