Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2009CWP/57/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a private school employee admitted to an evening LL.B. course, was denied admission to the second year and denied a migration certificate. The Court ruled that while admission was denied due to course closure, the University was required to issue the migration certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-University directed to issue No Objection Certificate or Inter University Migration Certificate within four months.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CWP No.57 of 2009 : 1 :

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶3

Date of decision: 03.08.2009

¶4

Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶6

Present: Mr.Shiv Raj Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶7

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):

¶8

The petitioner is a serving employee in a private school. He applied for admission to three years LL.B. Course (Evening) for the session 2006-07 which was being pursued by respondent No.2. He was admitted to the course aforesaid. He deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fee. The petitioner appeared in the first year examination and out of 9, he cleared 7 papers. It is the petitioners' own case that though he was entitled to be admitted to the Second year LL.B.Course (Evening) despite the fact that he failed in two papers, but on account of the illness of his father, the petitioner could not take admission in the second year of the said course. The petitioner, however, appeared in the next year for taking two papers and cleared the same. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for admission to second year course during the session 2008-09. He was refused admission on the ground that the University has already closed the evening session and there is no classes for the second year LL.B. Course (evening) during the Session 2008-09. The petitioner also applied for Inter University Migration

¶9

CWP No.57 of 2009 : 2 :

¶10

Certificate, but the same has also not been issued and the petitioner was asked to fill up the requisite form for issue of the final migration certificate. The petitioner, thereafter, claims to have made representation to the ViceChancellor and also served a legal notice dated 21.11.2008 which has been declined vide Annexure P-5 and the claim of the petitioner for admission to second year LL.B. Course (Evening) has been declined on account of closing of the evening session of the academic Session 2007-08.

¶11

As regards the issue of Inter University Migration Certificate is concerned, the petitioner applied for the same on prescribed form along with fee. He wanted migration certificate from this University. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition seeking a direction for his admission to second year LL.B. Course.

¶12

On being put to notice, respondents have filed detailed reply. It is admitted that the petitioner was given admission in three years LL.B. (Evening) course in the session 2006-07. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not seek admission for second year though he was entitled to seek such admission. It is further stated that respondent No.2 discontinued the new admission in the evening classes from the Session 2007-08 and the evening classes have been closed and the students who had taken admission during Session 2006-07 were only allowed to complete the course. It is further stated that since there was no batch for the second year LL.B. Course during the academic session 2007-08, the petitioner could not be admitted to the said course in the said year.

¶13

As regards the grant of No Objection Certificate and the Inter University Migration Certificate are concerned, it is admitted that the petitioner's request was received vide letter dated 12.12.2007 wherein he

¶14

CWP No.57 of 2009 : 3 :

¶15

conveyed that he wanted migration to Department of Laws, Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. On receipt of this letter, he was conveyed by the respondents vide letter dated 15.04.2008 that his request was not acceded to. It is further mentioned that the petitioner was further conveyed that if he needed Migration Certificate, he may apply afresh with fee of Rs.150/-. The respondents have placed on record a copy of the letter dated 15.04.2008 (Annexure R-2/2).

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶17

It is the admitted case of the parties that the University stopped admission to three years evening LL.B. Course from the academic session 2007-08. It is also admitted case of the petitioner that though he was entitled to seek admission in the second year course, but he did not opt for admission on account of alleged illness of his father. Since the petitioner did not seek admission for the second year LL.B. Course, the University closed the session and when the petitioner opted for admission to second year course during the academic session 2008-09, the evening course had already been closed. Since the admission had already been closed, there was no class/batch for the second year LL.B. Course. Hence, the petitioner could not be admitted to the session 2008-09.

¶18

In view of the above circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for admission to Second year LL. B. Course (evening). However, the claim of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate/Inter University Migration Certificate has not been appropriately dealt with by the respondent-University and the claim of the petitioner was declined without any valid reasons. The petitioner had not applied to seek permanent migration and was entitled to seek Inter

¶19

CWP No.57 of 2009 : 4 :

¶20

University Migration Certificate. No rule or regulation has been brought to my notice to show that the petitioner was not entitled to No Objection Certificate/Inter University Migration Certificate.

¶21

For the reasons recorded above, respondent No.2-University is directed to issue No Objection Certificate or Inter University Migration Certificate to the petitioner in accordance with rules within a period of four months from today to enable the petitioner to seek admission elsewhere, if permissible under law.

¶22

With these observations, present petition is disposed of.

¶23

03.08.2009 BLS

¶24

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUEGE

¶25

Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Pal etc. Vs Financial Commissioner Rural Dev. & Panchayat Pb. & Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ritika Vs Baba Farid University of Health Sci. and Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kiran Devi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.