Partly allowed

Rajni Rani v. Punjab University Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2010CWP/3345/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court judge allowed writ petition where petitioner faced 13-year academic suspension due to certification fraud and university reopening case. Applying proportionality doctrine, court reduced three-year disqualification to one year to prevent undue hardship.

What did the court decide?

Disqualification for three years reduced to one year for appearing in any examination; no order as to costs.

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

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 3345 of 2000

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 3345 of 2000

¶5

Date of Decision: 24.8.2010

Ms. Rajni Rani

…Petitioner

Versus

Panjab University and Others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 6.

¶14

Mr.Salil Sagar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.7.

¶15

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner appeared for 10+2 examination, conducted by the Punjab School Education Board in March 1997 against Roll No. 381037. As per Annexure P2 Detailed Marks Card (hereinafter referred to as “DMC”), she failed in the subject of English. The petitioner applied for getting admission in B.A. (Part -I) in the Guru Nanak Girls College, Model Town, Ludhiana. At that time, the petitioner produced DMC in which she depicted marks secured in the subject of English as 17 to say that she had got compartment, whereas the petitioner had obtained only 12 marks in that subject. Therefore, she failed in 10+2 examination. The forgery in the DMC was lateron found, for which a notice was

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No. 3345 of 2000

¶18

¶19

issued to the petitioner by the Panjab University to show cause as to why she should not be disqualified in any examination conducted by the Panjab University. An explanation was sought from the Punjab School Education Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). The Board intimated that verification of the records reveals that the candidate had secured 12 marks in the subject of English and not 17 marks. In reply to the Show Cause Notice, the candidate stated to the University that she had obtained 17 marks and not 12 marks. The proceedings thereafter were referred to the Sub Committee, constituted by the University to recommend action against those students who had tampered with their certificates. Thereafter, the University decided that those candidates, who had given fake certificates, an opportunity of hearing be afforded to them. A committee under the Chairmanship of Dean, University Instructions, examined the case of the petitioner and came to a conclusion that the candidate had deliberately tampered with her DMC to obtain admission which could not have otherwise been granted. On 15.12.1999, the Committee had disqualified the petitioner who was a student of B.A. (Part-I) from academic Session 1997-98 to 1999-2000 i.e. for a period of three years.

¶20

Coming straight to the facts, the petitioner had appeared in 10+2 examination in March 1997. Thereafter, she got admission in Guru Nanak Girls College, Model Town, Ludhiana. However, she had not undertaken the examination of B.A. (Part-I) in the year 1998 and in March 1998, she sought fresh admission at Government College for Women, Ludhiana. In March 1999, the petitioner appeared in the examination of B.A. (Part-I). However, on 21.5.1999, the University had

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No. 3345 of 2000

¶22

¶23

disqualified the petitioner for a period of three years. Thereafter, the result of the petitioner was not declared. Lateron, the Vice Chancellor of Panjab University, Chandigarh, in exercising the powers vested with him, on 7.10.1999, had exonerated the petitioner from the punishment of disqualification for the period of three years and her result was declared on 7.10.1999, wherein she was declared pass in B.A. (Part-I) examination securing 425 marks out of 800. After the petitioner was exonerated by the Vice Chancellor and was declared pass in October 1999, the University again reopened her case and the matter was referred to Syndicate. The Syndicate, vide its decision dated 17.1.2000 (Annexure P19), reiterated and upheld the earlier decision of the University whereby the petitioner was disqualified for the period of three years. Thus, the petitioner was declared as ineligible to undertake examination pertaining to academic sessions 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The order (Annexure P18) was passed in January 2000. Before passing of the said order, since the petitioner had passed the examination of B.A. (Part-I) as she was exonerated by the Vice Chancellor, she had undertaken her studies for B.A. (Part-II). She was permitted to appear in the examination, to be held by the University, for B.A. (Part-II) in March 2000. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶24

A Division Bench of this Court on 3.4.2000, permitted the petitioner to appear in B.A. (Part-II) examination provisionally. Similarly, another interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court on 5.4.2001, vide which she was permitted to appear in B.A. (Final) examination commencing from 7.4.2001. Since

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No. 3345 of 2000

¶26

¶27

the petitioner was made to appear provisionally vide interim orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.4.200 and 5.4.2001, the University had withheld her result for the examinations of B.A. (Part-II) and B.A. (Final).

¶28

Normally, this Court does not interfere in the punishment awarded by the University. But this is a case where the petitioner was punished and lateron the Vice Chancellor had exonerated her from the charge and also absolved her from the disqualification. Due to this decision of the Vice Chancellor, result of the petitioner was declared and she was stated to have passed B.A. (Part-I) examination. It was lateron when the Syndicate of the University decided to reopen the case, the punishment, earlier awarded to the petitioner, was restored. Due to this conduct of the University, the petitioner has been made to suffer unnecessarily and it is a case of extreme hardships.

¶29

This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that after the petitioner had appeared in B.A. (Part-I) examination, ten years are going to elapse. Delay in deciding the writ petition is another circumstance as this Court cannot put the clock back and give ten years back to her for which she could not pursue her studies. There is a complete stand still in her academic life for the last 12 years. The fate of the petitioner was hanging due to non-decision of this writ petition. It is not disputed that earlier, the petitioner had filed Civil Misc. Application No. 28182 of 2001 in the present writ petition that her result of B.A. (Part-II) and B.A. (Final) be declared, which was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2001.

¶30

Taking all these circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that the doctrine of proportionality can be invoked in the

¶31

Civil Writ Petition No. 3345 of 2000

¶32

¶33

present case. The petitioner has already suffered for more than 12 years and in case the present writ petition is dismissed, at this stage, she will have to undertake the examination of B.A. (Part-II) and B.A. (Final) afresh. In this way, the disqualification will not be three years, as imposed by the University but for all intent and purposes, it will be for 13 years.

¶34

Learned counsel for the University has submitted that the petitioner, in the year 2001, could again undertake the examination. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that due to pendency of the present writ petition, results of B.A. Part II and III were not declared by the University. Due to pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had lost 13 years of her academic career. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in case the punishment of disqualification for three years imposed by the University is reduced to one year, the petitioner will be able to start her career afresh from today onwards, otherwise, the disqualification shall operate from today onwards and she will not be entitled for declaration of result for B.A. (Part-II) and B.A. (Final).

¶35

Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions that the punishment awarded by the University i.e. disqualification for three years from appearing in any examination, is reduced to one year. However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶36

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)

¶37

Judge

¶38

August 24, 2010 “ DK ”

Rajni Rani v. Punjab University Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni Rani v. Punjab University Chandigarh & 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

Jagbir Singh Vs Sanjay Bhatia

M/S Randhawa Institute of Physics and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Amar Singh Sodhi

Faqir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab