SHWETA BHANDARI vs HNB GARHWAL UNIVERSITY CENTRAL SRINAGAR

2026:UHC:1848


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2105 of 2024

18 March, 2026
Shweta Bhandari and Another --Petitioners

Versus
HNB Garhwal University Central Srinagar and Another

--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
:-
Presence

Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for
respondent No.1-University.
Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Institution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent No.1 to declare the final result
th
(including the 4 semester) of petitioners of two years
B.Ed. Course and if successful, award the degree
forthwith.
2. The facts in brief are that petitioners appeared
in B.Ed. entrance examination conducted by respondent
No.1-University and they were successful and found
place in the merit list of said examination. Petitioners
took admission in the respondent No.2-institution under
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category as directed
by the Ministry of Human Resources Development,
wherein, Institutions were directed to implement the
rd
103 Constitutional Amendment, whereby, reservation
was provided to Economically Weaker Sections of the
Society. Petitioners successfully completed two years
B.Ed. Course. After completion of the B.Ed. Course,
1

2026:UHC:1848
respondent No.2 has sent the marks of the petitioners to
respondent No.1-University to declare their result, but
the same was not declared saying that respondent No.2
was only permitted to induct 100 students and since
petitioners were beyond the limit of 100 students,
therefore, their result cannot be declared.
3. 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.
4. Counter affidavits have been filed by both the
respondents.
5. 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.”
6. 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
rd
SCERTs Directors, requesting them to implement 103
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

2026:UHC:1848
7. 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
rd
regarding the implementation of 103 Constitutional
Amendment.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that it is only after these
correspondences, respondent No.2 inducted 106
students including the petitioners in two years B.Ed.
Course 2019-21.
9. It is further contended by him that since it was
rd
a question of implementation of 103 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.
10. 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 for
rd
implementation of the 103 Constitutional Amendment
and to induct more than 100 students in the Institution.
11. 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

2026:UHC:1848
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Learned counsel for 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.
15. 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
rd
immediate benefit of the 103 Constitutional Amendment
to the entitled persons including the petitioners, and it is
only after the NCTE approval in its letter dated
08.07.2019 and subsequent letter issued by the
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

2026:UHC:1848
contrary to the permission granted by the University in
its letter dated 24.09.2019. The same is accordingly
brushed aside and is rejected.
16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,
this Court is of the view that the present writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
17. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
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.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.



( Pankaj Purohit, J .)
18.03.2026
PN




5