Enter College / University / City name:

Home > Chandigarh > Education > Chandigarh > Government College of Education (Sector 20)

Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh, Chandigarh


Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Address: Plot / Street / Area
Sector 20-D
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Chandigarh, India

Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh is a recognised institute / college. Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh was established on / in 1954.

Principal of Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh is Dr Beantjit Kaur CES-I (Offtg Principal), Dr Mrs Harsh Batra.

Government College of Education (Sector 20) is situated in Chandigarh of Chandigarh state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Chandigarh comes under Chandigarh Tehsil, Chandigarh District.

Contact Person(s) of the Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh is (are): Dr. Mrs. Rakesh Agnihotri.

Residence Phone No(s) of concerned peron(s) of Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh is (are) : 0172-2741701.

Contact Details of Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh are : Telephone: +91-172-2700075, 2705518, 2784182
Mr KL Sodhi, Dean +91-172-2700075
Director: Saroj Saini
Co Educational, NAAC 'A', Dr (Mrs) Kulbir Kaur (English)


Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh runs course(s) in Education stream(s).
B.Ed, M.Ed

Approval details: Government College of Education (Sector 20) is affiliated with Panjab University, Chandigarh (Chandigarh)


Images / newspaper cuttings related to Government College of Education (Sector 20)

M Ed course (Government College of Education (Sector 20))
Admission Notice: 8th September, 2015
M Ed course


52nd Annual Convocation ()


54th Convocation April 2010 (News)

Corrigendum regarding Post of Tabla Instructor etc (Job Vacancy)

Post for Principal on Contract Base (Job Vacancy)

Graduates and Post graduates (Admission Notice)

Lecturers of Geography History and Computer Science etc (Job Vacancy)

Guidence and Counselling (Job Vacancy)

Lab Attendant and Peon (Job Vacancy)

54th Annual Convocation ()

Fruit Juice Rehri and College Canteen etc (Tender)

Fruit Juice Rehri and College Canteen Mess (Tender)

55th Annual Convocation of session 2009 to 2010 (Convocation)

Cleanliness campaign held (News)

Lecturer and Tabla Instructor etc (Corrigendum)

56th Annual Convocation 2010 2011 (Convocation)

56th Annual Convocation (Convocation)

Supplying outsource services (Tender)

Supply of outdoor services (Tender)

Mess and Canteen Contract (Tender)

Mess and Canteen Contract (Tender)

Students participate in Poster making and writing program (News)

Students ko di health ki jankari (News)

Opening of NSS Camp (News)

Resume rating and Interview skill karyashala ayojit (News)

57 th Annual Convocation 2013 (Convocation)

57 th Annual Convocation (Convocation)

57 th Annual Convocation Program (Convocation)

57th Annual convocation (Convocation)

Netik Shiksha ka path padhaye teachers (News)

Mess Contract (Tender)

New relations of friendship from smartest women (News)

Orientation program of volunteer teachers start (News)

Colleges hold seminars, panel discussion (News)

Canteen services (Tender)

NSS camp held (News)

NSS camp held (News)

58th Annual Convocation 2013 (Convocation)

PhD in Biological Sciences (Admission Notice)

250 students get degrees on convocation (Convocation)

Annual Convocation held (Convocation)

Merit of BBA and BCA admissions declared (News)

Canteen Contract (Tender)

Seats alloted on day one of counselling for B Ed course (News)

Canteen services (Tender)

59th Annual Convocation held (Convocation)

Human rights seminar ends (News)

59th Annual Convocation held (Convocation)

59th Annual Convocation held (Convocation)

59th Annual Convocation held (Convocation)

M Ed course (Admission Notice)

Media coverage of Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh, Chandigarh



(1) C.R. No.5931 of 2008.

Decided on 21st July, 2009.

Anurag Verma. .. Petitioner
Shaveta Verma. .. Respondent

Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner-husband.
Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondent-wife.

C.R. No.6256 of 2008.
Shaveta Verma. .. Petitioner
Anurag Verma. Respondent

C.R. No.6256 of 2008


Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner-wife.
Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the respondent-husband.

Aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2008, passed by additional District Judge, Panchkula, granting interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner-wife Shaveta Verma (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and Rs.5,000/- per month for her minor son, in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in a petition for annulment of marriage filed by respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), both the parties have filed revision petitions. Since both civil revisions arise out of the same impugned order, the Civil Revision No.6256 of 2008, Shaveta Verma Vs. Anurag Verma and Civil Revision No.5931 of 2008, Anurag Verma Vs. Shaveta Verma, have been taken up together.

In her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, petitioner Shaveta Verma had averred that the respondent being an IAS Officer, is drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month apart from other perks and facilities. He has also got other sources of income i.e., rental income from various immovable properties situated in various places at Chandigarh and Patiala, dividends from the shares worth Rs.15 lacs and his total income is Rs.55,000/ per month-. It had been averred in the application that the respondent is owner/benami owner of two plots at Khanna and two flats in IAS Society behind PGI whereas the petitioner is simply a housewife having done B.Sc., in Home Science not gainfully employed anywhere and was unable to maintain herself as well as minor son Aneesh born on 26.07.1997. She claimed that she is currently doing her B.Ed Degree course from Govt. College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh, so that she might be able to stand on her own feet and to support her son. It was claimed that Aneesh Verma is in 5 th Class studying in Straw Berry Fields World School, Sector 26, Chandigarh, for which she has to pay tuition fee to the tune of Rs.8250/- for three months in addition to Rs.900/- for transportation charges besides meeting the expenses of cloths and books etc. His expenditure was claimed to be Rs.5500/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. She claimed that she was looking for a suitable accommodation on rent which is going to cost her about Rs.15,000/- per month. It was claimed that the respondent do not have any liability as his parents are having independent income. On
the basis of above said averments she claimed that she is entitled to Rs.30,000/- per month to sustain. Litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- were also claimed by her.

The respondent-husband in his reply claimed that the petitioner had suppressed her property and income with a view to mislead the Court. As per her income tax return for the Financial Year ending on 31.03.2006, she earned agricultural income of Rs.1,05,000/- from 6 acres of land in the outskirts of Khanna. For the Financial Year ending 31.03.2008, she would be earning Rs.1,50,000/- from the said land. As per computation sheet with income tax return, she had advanced a sum of about Rs.10,000,00/- to her mother Raj Rani on 31.03.2006. She would be earning an interest of, at least, Rs.1,55,000/- on this amount for the Financial Year ending on 31.03.2008.

Her monthly income is more than Rs.25,000/-, whereas carry home salary of the respondent-husband was only Rs.24,000/-. The respondent averred in the reply that he
had been paying the tuition fee of the minor son even after separation and with basic pay of Rs.15,500/-, his total income is Rs.32,508/- and after deductions towards GPF and income tax etc., net payable to him is Rs.24,138/-. The respondent claimed that the
two plots mentioned in the application are actually owned by his mother as she had purchased the same from her own resources. He admitted that he is a member of Punjab IAS Officers Cooperative House Building Society and applied for a plot. He admitted the annual dividends from shares to Rs.6,000/-.

After considering the material made available to the trial Court, the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide order dated 02.05.2008, allowed the application and granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.10,000/- per month which includes Rs.5,000/- for
petitioner and Rs.5,000/- for minor son. Rs.2200/- were granted as litigation expenses to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, Sh.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, has vehemently urged that the respondenthusband has intentionally concealed his income tax return, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against him in view of the
judgment of Honble Apex Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs.District Judge, Dehradun and others, reported in (1997) 7, Supreme Court Cases, Page 7. He argued that as the respondent-husband has been able to conceal his true income; Even on the basis of
modest estimate, the wife should have been granted, at least, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and sufficient amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month for the child for his proper upbringing.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondenthusband, Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, pressed for Civil Revision No.5931 of 2008, to contend that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife is an excessive amount in view of the agricultural income of the wife and she is not entitled to any maintenance.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire facts and circumstances of this case and carefully considered the contentions of counsel for both the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner-wife has been awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, in total, as maintenance pendente lite which includes, a sum of Rs.5,000/- for her and another sum of Rs.5,000/- for the child taking into consideration the status of the parties and the expenditure which is required to be incurred by the petitioner for looking after the child whereas the respondent-husband has claimed that it is he who is himself bearing the expenses of the education of the child. Great emphasis has been laid down on the judgment of Jasbir Kaur Sehgals case (supra) to contend that an adverse inference is required to be drawn by the Court about the stated income of the husband as he has made an attempt to conceal his true income by not producing his income tax return. There is no dispute regarding the practice of drawing adverse inference against a person who withholds a document necessary for the adjudication of a particular point of controversy. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgals case, the husband was a retired Lieutenant Colonel and he did not file any certificate of his salary from his employer though the wife had contended that he was owner of two companies which was denied by the husband. No proof of income was available with the Court. In said circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court observed that the husband had not filed any assessment order but had filed his computation of taxable income for the Assessment Years 1992 to 1997. Having not given true account of his assessment and income adverse inference was drawn, as such, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the wife as maintenance pendente lite. It was also held that conduct of the parties in the proceedings; the averments made in the application and reply thereto; the tendency of
the wife to inflate the income out of proportions and that of husband to suppress the same; and the like, there has to be honesty of purpose in both the parties. In the present case, the salary of the respondent has been disclosed by him. He has explained his position pertaining to the properties which the petitioner-wife had claimed to be belonging to him, the respondent-husband has placed on record the income tax return of the petitioner. There is no occasion to draw any adverse inference against the respondent by following the observations of Jasbir Kaur Sehgals case. In the present case, the trial Court seems to have, after proper application of mind and taking into consideration all the factors, permitted the interim maintenance to be Rs.10,000/- per month, though Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, does not specifically permit the grant of maintenance to the child but it is always prudent for a Court determining interim maintenance taking into consideration the responsibility of maintenance of the minor child by wife unable to maintain herself while estimating the entitlement of maintenance pendente lite.

It is not out of place to mention here that the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application on the basis of subsequent events i.e., the additional liability of the
petitioner to maintain the child on account of enhanced expenditure having been filed before the lower Court, he should be permitted to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to establish before the lower Court that on subsequent and additional grounds, the wife has acquired a right for enhancement of the interim maintenance.

Mr.Arun Palli, counsel for the respondent-husband has vehemently contended that it is not a case of enhancement of maintenance pendente lite but a case where on account of conduct of the petitioner and availability of enough resources with the respondent the petition should have been dismissed. He submitted that in view of the petitioner having ultimately not pressed the revision petition for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite, he may also be permitted to withdraw the revision petition as not pressed but he contended that the withdrawal of the revision petition may not be treated to imply that his right to contest the petition for additional maintenance pendente lite could be prejudiced.

Both the revision petitions are dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties in application for enhancement of maintenance pending before the Court below.


BALRAJ SINGH Versus STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2003


Balraj Singh
...... Petitioner

State of U.T., Chandigarh
...... Respondent

Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner.

None for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.

Balraj Singh accused-appellant (herein referred as the accused) was convicted on the allegations of seeking admission in O.T. Class on the basis of forged certificate of Shastri examination. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC. The appeal, preferred by him was dismissed by the Appellate Coaurt vide judgment dated 26.09.2003. In nutshell, the allegations are that Smt.Tajinder Malhotra (PW4), Principal, Government College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh, filed a written complaint Ex.PW4/A on 05.03.1994 before Station House Officer, Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh, alleging therein that the accused had got admission in O.T. Class in their college by forging the original certificate of Shastri Examination, passed by him. On preliminary inquiry, it was established that though certificate of Shastri Examination was original but he had tempered the marks by increasing the same from 400 to 500 to make merit, as such, he sought the admission. The accused also made a confessional statement Ex.P7 before the InquiryOfficer.

On the receipt of above complaint, formal FIR Ex.PW7/A was registered and the case was investigated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer had taken into possession application form Ex.P1, mark sheet Ex.P2, copy of matriculation certificate Ex.P3, copy of the disputed mark-sheet Ex.P4, another copy of mark sheet Ex.P5, the order Ex.P6 vide which his admission was cancelled, his confessional statement Ex.P7 and merit list of successful candidates Ex.P8. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. The accused was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. No evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed.

Heard. Record perused. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no reliance could be placed on the alleged certificate Ex.P4 without bothering to get placed the original on the record. It was further urged that since genuineness of the document was only prime question, therefore, the copies should not have been accepted in evidence and the same could be accepted only after examining the original. None of the witnesses has stated that they had seen the original of Ex.P4, as such Ex.P4 could not be placed reliance to base the conviction of the accused. Having pondered over the contentions, the same are devoid of any merit. There is no dispute with the fact that the accused took admission on the basis of a certificate of Shastri Examination Ex.P4, containing his marks as 500.

The record reveals that had he not tempered the certificate then he would not have obtained the admission. Overwhelming evidence has been led on the record in order to prove that the accused had converted his marks from 400 to 500. Smt. Sudarshan Malhotra, Superintendent, Certificate Branch, Punjab University, has made the statement from the original record that the accused had passed the Honours in Sanskrit (Shastri Part-II) in May 1992 at Roll No.542 and had obtained 400 marks out of 800. She has proved the original certificate on the file as Ex.PW1/A. A bare perusal of this certificate could reveal that the accused had obtained 400 marks out of 800 in Shastri examination. The accused produced the tempered photo copy of the original certificate in order to project that he had obtained 500 marks, thus the crux of the matter is that the accused tempered the document Ex.P4 in order to project that he had obtained 500 marks out of 800 whereas he actually obtained 400 marks and got admission in O.T.Class.

As regards the argument that original certificate was not proved on the record, it would be significant to mention here that after clearing the examination, the accused was issued the original certificate, therefore, he was in possession of the same.

If he wanted to rebut the prosecution case and wanted to project something different than what was said by the prosecution, he would have brought the original certificate on the record in order to show that he never tempered the original of Ex.P4 or Ex.P4 and he had actually received 500 marks and not 400 marks whereas the prosecution after examining the concerned officer of the Punjab University, has proved that the accused received only 400 marks and not 500 marks. Both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact that the accused prepared a forged document and on the basis of the same, he took the admission in O.T.Class in the college. Had he not tempered the certificate then he could not be granted admission. As such, both the Courts below were right in holding him guilty for the offence for which he had been charged. No such illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, resulting into mis-carriage of justice or failure of justice. In the absence of any perversity in the impugned judgment, no adverse view than what has been taken by the First Appellate Court, could be formed. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority as per rules.


Summary: Government College of Education (Sector 20), Chandigarh Chandigarh website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.