Allowed

Anju Bala v. Punjab University Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2010CWP/15230/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a law student, sought directions to add internal assessment marks from 2007 to her semester result. The Court directed the University to accept the assessment sent by the College and declare the result within two weeks, resolving the grievance without first quashing lower orders.

What did the court decide?

The respondent University directed to add internal assessment marks to the petitioner's record and declare the IInd semester result within two weeks from the date of the order.

Anju Bala Vs Punjab University Chandigarh… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15230 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 25, 2010

Anju Bala

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Panjab University, Chandigarh and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

PRESENT:

¶14

Mr. C. L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Munish Bansal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶16

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶17

¶18

RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to add his internal assessment marks for the year 2007 and to declare his result accordingly.

¶20

The petitioner is a student of 3 years LL.B. Course and studying in Rayat College of Law (respondent No.3). The petitioner claims to be a meritorious student and has passed her 10^th Class with 77% marks in the year 1992. She passed her +2 examination with 61% marks. She passed B.Sc. (Medical) with 63.41% marks and

¶21

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15230 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:

¶22

is a Post Graduate in English with 50% marks.

¶23

On the basis of an entrance test conducted in the year 2006, the petitioner got admission in Rayat College of Law, Railmajra, District Nawanshahr. She had obtained ranking No.5. The petitioner appeared in the Ist Semester examination in the year 2006 and had passed the same with 65% marks. She accordingly got admission in IInd Semester. The petitioner could not appear in the examination held in April 2007. She then appeared for IInd Semester examination conducted in November 2007 under Roll Number 1340. The result of the petitioner was shown as `RL' (result later). Without adding the internal assessment of the petitioner, the result was declared requiring the petitioner to re-appear in two papers i.e. Constitutional Law-II and Family Law-II. The petitioner again applied for appearing in the IInd Semester examination. She also appeared in the IIIrd Semester examination in November 2008 and passed the same with 66% marks. Later, she also appeared in IVth Semester, which she had passed with 68% marks.

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the internal assessment for the year 2007, when she appeared in IInd Semester examination, was sent but the result was declared without adding the said marks. The petitioner made a written representation to the Vice Chancellor, explaining the same and also requested that the internal assessment marks be added as sent by College and then result of the IInd Semester be declared. When nothing was done, she filed the present writ petition before this Court.

¶25

In response to notice issued, reply has been filed.

¶26

When the case came up for hearing on 7.5.2010, this

¶27

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15230 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:

¶28

Court passed the following order:-

¶29

“The petitioner has appeared in the examination in November, 2007. As a matter of fact, internal assessment was required for the period prior to that whereas the college has forwarded the internal assessment of May, 2008, much after the period of examination which is not relevant for the purpose of the examination held in November, 2007.

¶30

Mr.Arupam Singla learned counsel for respondent No.3 will seek fresh instructions whether any internal assessment was awarded to the petitioner prior to November, 2007 based upon rules/regulations for the purpose which, inter-alia include the attendance etc.

¶31

Let the internal assessment for the period in question along with the marks allocated be placed on record before the next date of hearing.”

¶32

In compliance of this order, the internal assessment has been placed on record by the respondent-College. Concededly, the internal assessment, as sent by the College, has not been added to the IInd Semester result of the petitioner. For this, the petitioner is not at fault in any manner. If the College has not sent internal assessment or had sent the assessment which was not proper, the University should have asked for the same. In any case, now the internal assessment for IInd semester has already been sent by the College. The University can not show any reluctance now to add the marks of internal assessment. The University should endevour to solve the problem of the students rather than adding to it. The

¶33

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15230 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:

¶34

submission by the learned counsel appearing for the University that two different internal assessments had been sent for the same period, can not be reason to deny taking assessment into consideration and prejudice the interest of the petitioner. The University may take any of the internal assessments to be validly sent by the College and may take any action, if so required, against the College, if it has violated any of the instructions or rules of the University. The University will take the relevant internal assessment of the petitioner into consideration and declare her result of the IInd semester examination. Let this be done within a period of two weeks from today so that the petitioner can take further course of action.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

August 25, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE

Anju Bala v. Punjab University Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Bala v. Punjab University Chandigarh and 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

Babita Rani Vs Robin Verma and Anr.

Gurpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs Panjab University and Ors.

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

Manisha Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Maru Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Saran Vs State of Haryana and Anr.