Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11334 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Maddheshiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ved Byas Mishra
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
When the name of the petitioner's father was in fact Krishna Murari Tripathi and when in the certificate issued for the examinations of Shastriya and Acharya, it was mentioned as Krishna Murari Tiwari, the petitioner represented before the University. Thereafter an order was passed on 30.11.2019 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed.
The petitioner had placed before the University the certificate which was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education, U.P. Lucknow in which the name of the petitioner's father had been given out as Krishna Murari Tripathi. He had also placed before the authorities certain other evidence which reflected that the name of the petitioner's father was Krishna Murari Tripathi. However, the representation of the petitioner was decided on 30.11.2019 without giving any reason.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that had the authority concerned looked into the certificate issued by the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education, U.P. Lucknow to him on 28.6.2011 then it would have become clear that the name of the petitioner's father was Krishna Murari Tripathi. He also submitted that the authority concerned ought to have looked into the other evidence which were placed by the petitioner. All this would have made it clear that the name of the petitioner's father was Krishna Murari Tripathi.
Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has, however, tried to support the order dated 30.11.2019 and submitted that there was no basis for changing the name of the petitioner's father.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, this Court is of the view that the order dated 30.11.2019 passed on the petitioner's representation cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is, accordingly, quashed. The petitioner may now file a fresh representation with all the evidence in his possession along with a copy of this order before the respondent- University within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter the University shall pass an order within a period of one month after considering the documents/evidence which the petitioner would place along with the representation. The copy of this order shall be duly verified by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)