Allowed

Gurpreet Kaur and Anr. v. Panjab University and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2010CWP/10607/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the University cannot cancel the result of petitioners who were permitted to appear in B.Sc. 3rd year examinations after being wrongly admitted. The petitioner was allowed their result with consequential relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Direction issued to the University to declare the result of the petitioners with all consequential relief.

Gurpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs Panjab… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 10607 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 10607 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.08.2010

¶5

Gurpreet Kaur and another

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Panjab University and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. H.B.S. Baidwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶13

¶14

RANJIT SINGH J.

¶15

Two petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for declaring their result of B.Sc. 3^rd year examination held by Panjab University. The petitioners/students of respondent No. 3/College had taken admission under Medical stream in the year 2006-07. Both the petitioners appeared in B.Sc. 1^st year examination and cleared all the subjects except Mathematics. They were promoted to B.Sc. 2^nd year. They were required to appear in the Mathematics examination of B.Sc. 1^st year. The petitioners appeared in compartment examination in Mathematics of B.Sc. 1^st year but still could not clear the same. They, however, were able to clear B.Sc. 2^nd year examination in their first attempt. At that stage, their right to seek admission in B.Sc. 3^rd year was to be properly considered by the College. The College, however, admitted the petitioners in the

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 10607 of 2009 2

¶17

B.Sc. 3^rd year. The said admission was approved by the University. The petitioners took one more chance to clear the compartment examination of B.Sc. 1^st year but still were not able to succeed. They both again appeared for the compartment examination of B.Sc. 1^st year as well as for the final examination of B.Sc. 3^rd year. However, their result of B.Sc. 3^rd year examination was withheld. Both the petitioners have, however, now cleared the compartment examination of B.Sc. 1^st year on 19.05.2010.

¶18

The University, with some justification, has withheld the result of B.Sc. 3^rd year examination of the petitioner on the ground that they were not eligible for admission to the said class, as the petitioners had not cleared the complete subjects of B.Sc. 1^st year. Aggrieved against this, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶19

University was put to notice and has filed the reply. As per the stand taken by the University, the petitioners have been wrongly admitted in B.Sc. 3^rd year class and were not eligible, till they had cleared all the subjects of B.Sc. 1^st year. The fact that the admission of the petitioners to B.Sc. 3^rd year granted by the college was approved by the University is not disputed.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioners has made reference to Section 27.2 of Panjab University Calendar Vol. 2007, which regulates the eligibility to join next higher class provisionally. This rule makes a provision in regard to chances to clear the compartment examination and this rule does not deal with the eligibility of a candidate to join and appear in the further examinations. Counsel for the petitioners, however, would refer to the observation made in S hri Krishan versus The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra AIR 1976

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No. 10607 of 2009 3

¶22

Supreme Court 376 to contend that once the petitioners were allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant would work itself out and such a candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving such a candidate permission to appear. The petitioners were permitted to appear in B.Sc. 3^rd year examination and prayer in the present petition is only to declare the result.

¶23

The action of the University to cancel the result of the examination, once it had earlier permitted the petitioners to appear and to seek admission, would sound a bit unfair. If the petitioners were not eligible for admission to B.Sc 3^rd year, the University should have seen this at the relevant time. In this regard, support can be had from the following observations made in the case of Shri Krishan (supra):-

¶24

“ Before issuing the admission card to a student to appear at Part I Law Examination in April 1972 it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinize the admission form filled by the student in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements. If neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinize the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of percentage in attendance the question of the

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No. 10607 of 2009 4

¶26

candidate committing a fraud did not arise. Similarly, when the candidate was allowed to appear at the Part II Law Examination in May 1973, the University authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate.” Accordingly, the action of the University now would not appear justified to cancel the examination once the petitioners were permitted to take admission and to appear in the examination. The writ petition, thus, would deserve to be allowed. Direction, therefore, is issued to the University to declare the result of the petitioners with all consequential relief.

¶27

August 24 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

Gurpreet Kaur and Anr. v. Panjab University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Kaur and Anr. v. Panjab University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Pathania Vs Union of India and Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dharmander Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Babita Rani Vs Robin Verma and Anr.

Meera Sahib Educational Welfare Society Vs Punjab Technical University & Ors.

Sandeep Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors.