Two-year B.Sc. Nursing students failed first year exams. Alleging promotion, they applied for second year exams. The university revoked admit cards citing eligibility rules. Appeals were dismissed as the rule clearly barred ineligible students from higher year exams.
Both appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
LPA No. 1007 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 18.08.2010
1) LPA No. 1007 of 2010
Jatinder Kaur and others ..Appellants
Versus
Pandit Bhagwat Dayal University and others ..Respondents
2) LPA No. 1006 of 2010
Dilpreet Kaur and others ..Appellants
Versus
Pandit Bhagwat Dayal University and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.
LPA No. 1007 of 2010 [2]
MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral)
LPA No. 1007 of 2010
[3]
letter dated 13.8.2010 received by the Superintendent in Chief of the College which is to the following effect:-
“ The roll Nos. to the following candidates of B.Sc. Nursing 2nd year have inadvertently been issued by the office as they are not eligible to appear in the 2nd year examination because of the reason that they have not passed their Ist year examination of B.Sc. Nursing. 8302, 8303, 8308, 8331, 8334, 8342, 8348, 8351, 8359, 8360. You are requested not to allow the above candidates to appear in the said examination.”
“ 5(iii) A person who has passed the first year B.Sc. Nursing Examinations of the University shall be eligible to join Second Year B.Sc. Nursing Course.”
LPA No. 1007 of 2010
[4]
to appear in the next year examination. The plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants is not sustainable because in that case the Rules itself provided that a student getting the grade of reappear in examination could appear in the next examination but his result would be kept in abeyance till he clears the reappear examination. The situation in the present case is not analogous to those rules. Rule 5(iii) clearly applies in the present case and therefore, the writ petitioners who failed to clear the Ist year examination in all the subjects are not eligible to appear in 2nd year examination. Further more, no benefit of analogous situation could be granted to the students where they are prohibited by existence of a Rule for appearing in the next higher examination. Moreover, the analogous case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants is misplaced and cannot come to the aid of the appellants because in that case the Rules are quite different. Moreover, the Courts are not meant to rewrite the Rules. No interference is thus called for in the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE
(AJAY TEWARI) 18.08.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether students who failed to clear first year examinations are eligible to appear in second year examinations under Rule 5(iii).
Whether the student applicants could be granted provisional admission to appear in the second year examination based on analogous case law.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions in limine.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Revision No. 3207 of 2009 titled as Ajay Kumar and others V. Gaur Brahman Ayurvedic & Physiotherapy College Brahmanvas and anotherDistinguished¶31
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jatinder Kaur and others
Dilpreet Kaur and others
Pandit Bhagwat Dayal University and others
Mukul Mudgal
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
