Allowed

Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. v. Baba Farid University Faridkot and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2010CWP/19524/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the University's refusal to send forth examination forms after appearing in and presumably passing the fourth year of a Bachelor of Physiotherapy course. The Court, invoking equity and compassion, directed the University to regularize the admission by declaring the result of the examination as a one-time exception without establishing a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Directed the University to regularize the result of the 4th year examination and admit the petitioners into the course as a one-time exception.

Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. Vs Baba Farid… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2008 Date of decision: 09.08.2010

¶5

Gurpreet Kaur and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for the University.

¶16

RANJIT SINGH J.

¶17

This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6459 & 19524 of 2008 and 5115 of 2009.

¶18

Being aggrieved against the action of the respondentUniversity in refusing to accept their examination forms for appearing in 4^th year of professional Bachelor of Physiotherapy course, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition seeking direction for issuing roll number/admit card and for permission to appear in the examination.

¶19

The petitioners got re-appear in few subjects in second year examination of Bachelor of Physiotherapy course. They,

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2008 2

¶21

however, were promoted to third year provisionally, subject to clearing their re-appear examination. The petitioners claim that they could clear the re-appear examination in six attempts. The petitioners took the re-appear examination of the second year and simultaneously appeared in third year examination. Still, the petitioners got re-appear in some of the subjects of second and third years. The petitioners, however, were promoted to the 4^th year subject to clearing the previous exams and were allowed to attend classes of 4^th year course.

¶22

During May 2008, the petitioners took re-appear of second and third years. The petitioners cleared the second year examination on 24.10.2008 but got re-appear in few subjects of third year examination. Respondents, hereinafter, refused to send examination forms for 4^th year examination. In December 2008, supplementary annual examination for 4^th year course was due, but their forms were not sent. Rather, they learnt that they were being reverted to third year and were debarred from appearing in the 4^th year examination. At that stage, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶23

While issuing notice of motion on 18.11.2008, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to appear in the 4^th year examination which was to commence w.e.f. 16.12.2009. Thereafter, an application was filed for directing the respondents to declare the result of 4^th year examination. It appears that the petitioners still could not qualify the 4^th year examination and accordingly, they filed an application seeking permission to appear in the supplementary examination. This prayer was allowed by this Court on 09.07.2009. On 28.08.2009 this writ petition was dismissed,

¶24

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2008

¶26

in view of the ratio laid down in Full Bench decision of this Court in CWP No. 15852 of 2008 decided on 10.07.2009, but this order was reviewed and that is how this writ petition is now coming up for hearing.

¶27

There is not much scope of dispute that the issues involved in the present writ petition would be covered by Full Bench decision of this Court. There has been change of equities in view of interim order passed by this Court. It was put to the counsel for the University to consider the case of the petitioners with sympathy and compassion because they were permitted to appear in the 4^th year examination under the orders of this Court. If the law was to operate which prima facie was against the petitioners, it was going to have rather telling effect on study of the petitioners. The petitioners atleast could be made to repeat the course of 4^th year as the University stand is that the petitioners would be taken to have cleared third year course.

¶28

The petitioners were permitted to appear in 4^th year examination. Strictly speaking that permission may not be legally permissible in view of the law laid down by Full Bench decision of this Court. The fact is that the petitioners have appeared in 4^th year examination after having studied. Except for equity, the petitioners have nothing to show. If the petitioners are made to repeat the course and are made to appear in the examination, it would lead to uncalled for wastage of time, energy with no tangible gain either to the organisation or to anyone else. The petitioners even took the risk of moving an application for appearing in supplementary examination now going on but withdrew the same at the risk of further set back if

¶29

¶30

Civil Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2008

¶31

the present petition was to be dismissed. The petitioners have literally pleaded for mercy.

¶32

The petitioners have appeared in 4^th year examination after attending classes. If they have qualified/passed then it would sound meaningless and futile to ask them to appear in the examination again and to pass the same again. Equity, thus, is weighing rather heavily in favour of their career. The University can show generosity to relax the requirement as an exception. The University may declare the result of 4^th year and regularize the admission of the petitioner as one time exception. This would not become precedent and would not be cited as such. This order has been made only keeping in peculiar facts of this case as otherwise the petitioners would suffer majorily and would have to repeat the study what they have completed and perhaps qualified as well. The University m0ay regularize the result of 4^th year examination of the petitioners, in the light of the observations as made above.

¶33

The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

¶34

August 09, 2010 rts

¶35

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. v. Baba Farid University Faridkot and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. v. Baba Farid University Faridkot 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

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Dara Ravi Chandrabhan Vs Pgimer, Chandigarh etc.

Suryaveer Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Makhan Singh and Ors. Vs Makhan Singh and Ors.

Prem Lata Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hari Dutt Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.