Uttarakhand High Court · 2026

Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.1-University for not declaring their result, petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court.

Counter affidavits have been filed by both the respondents.

Respondent No.2-institution in its counter affidavit stated that Ministry of Human Resource Development issued an Office Memorandum dated

17.01.2019 annexed as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit. Clause 2(c) of the said O.M. is provides as under:-

Clause 2(c):- Every Central Educational Institution shall, with the prior approval of the appropriate authority (as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006), increase the number of seats over and above its annual permitted strength in each branch of study or faculty so that the number of seats available, excluding those reserved for the persons belonging to the EWSs, is not less than the number of such seats available, in each category, for the academic session immediately preceding the date of the coming into force of this O.M.

The said notification contained a Schedule and in the Schedule, name of respondent No.1-University is at S.No.39. Respondent No.2 further submits that the NCTE also issued a letter dated 08.07.2019, addressing to all Principal Secretaries of State Governments/UTs, all Vice-Chancellors of State and Central Universities and all SCERTs Directors, requesting them to implement 103rd Constitutional Amendment in respect of the reservation policy for admission in teacher education institutions without affecting the percentage reservations of SC/ST/ OBC/General. 2

Apart from that, pursuant to the aforesaid O.M. dated 17.01.2019, respondent No.1-University under the hand of its Registrar had written a letter dated

24.09.2019 to the President of Association of Self-finance Institutes Uttarakhand to implement the letter issued by the NCERT dated 08.07.2019, which was issued regarding the implementation of 103rd Constitutional Amendment.

It is contended by learned counsel respondent No.2 only after correspondences, respondent No.2 inducted 106 students including the petitioners in two years B.Ed. Course 2019-21.

It is further contended by him that since it was a question of implementation of 103rd Constitutional Amendment, therefore, by applying the same, no illegality has been committed by it in giving admission to the students over and above 100 students. And, therefore, respondent No.1-University cannot withhold the result of the petitioners.

A counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No.1-University, wherein, it has been stated that the respondent No.2-Institution has not taken a separate affiliation letter by the University implementation of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and to induct more than 100 students in the Institution.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners cannot be found at any fault while taking admission in the respondent No.2-Institution and this is the internal dispute of respondent No.1-University and respondent No.2-Institution, which cannot be made a ground to the sufferings of the petitioners. 3

He further submits that petitioners were given admission under the EWS category and they have completed their Course in the year 2021, while they are still groping in dark in the lack of result of two years B.Ed. Course.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 harped upon the contention raised in the counter affidavit that the respondent No.2-Institution cannot give admission beyond the sanctioned limit of 100 students without getting clear cut affiliation letter from respondent No.1-University.

Learned counsel respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that once the permission has been granted by the respondent No.1-University vide order dated 24.09.2019, only formality has remained of issuance of an affiliation letter, and therefore, it cannot come in a way to in part justice to the petitioners who pursued their two years B.Ed. Course successfully.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the writ petition as well as the relevant documents relied upon by the respective counsel, this Court is of the view that the purpose of issuance of Office Memorandum by the Ministry of Human Resources Development was to give immediate benefit of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment to the entitled persons including the petitioners, and it is only after the NCTE approval letter dated

08.07.2019 and subsequent letter issued by University dated 24.09.2019, the admission has been given to petitioners. The argument which has been advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.1- University that a formal affiliation letter is needed run 4 contrary to the permission granted by the University in its letter dated 24.09.2019. The same is accordingly brushed aside and is rejected.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the present writ petition allowed. A mandamus is issued to respondent No.1- University to immediately declare the result of the petitioners within a period of 15 days from today.

of. PN Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.03.2026 5