Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/8390/2022 on 29 December 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 8390 of 2022 Decided on: 29th December, 2022 _____________________________________________________ Tashil Thakur (minor) …...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. & Others
…..Respondents ______________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Dhanvanti, Advocate,
For the respondents/State: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Deputy Advocate General.
Sabina, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash the selection of respondent No.5 for admission in the Sports Hostel in the category of Volley ball girls held on 28.10.2022 at Govt. (Girls) Senior Secondary School, Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P.
ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents No. 1 to 4
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
to take the test of the petitioner for her admission in the Sports Hostel in the category of Volley ball girls for the season 2022-23 and justice be done.
iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to include one female member in the Selection Committee to make the selection of trial of talented players for the Sports Hostel in the category of Volley ball and further to make videography of the entire selection process to make it transparent;
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had tempered with the mark-sheet Annexure P-3 in order to declare respondent No.5 as the selected candidate.
3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and submitted that so far as respondent No.5 is concerned, she had thrown medicine ball at a distance of 8.55 meters and consequently, as per the criteria she had been awarded two marks in that category. Learned Deputy Advocate General has further submitted that so far as the event of throwing the medicine ball is concerned, the candidates were to be given medicine ball weighing 1 kilogram and thereafter the distance of throw had to be measured. However, in the present case, the candidates were given medicine ball weighing 2 kilograms. Consequently, the distance on which the medicine ball had been thrown by a candidate, had been doubled and the said procedure was followed for all the candidates. Learned Deputy Advocate General has further submitted that so far as petitioner is concerned, she had thrown the medicine ball at a distance of 3.30 meters and the same had been treated as 6.60 meters. So far as respondent No.5 is concerned, she had thrown the medicine ball at a distance of 4.28 meters and the same had been treated as 8.55 meters.
4. Learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to produce the video recording of the event.
5. The video recording shows that respondent No.5 had performed much better than the petitioner. Hence, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been interpolation in the mark-sheet is without any basis.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Sabina)
Judge
(Sushil Kukreja )
Judge December 29, 2022 (himani)