Allowed

Richa and Anr. v. Kurukshetra University and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2011CWP/11407/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a nursing student, challenged the University's cancellation of admission due to alleged variance between form and calendar eligibility conditions. The Court held the cancellation unsustainable as the University advertised specific conditions in the form, and once admission was granted, the student could not be penalized for procedural irregularities not attributable to them.

What did the court decide?

The impugned action of cancelling admission was declared illegal, petitioners' continuation in the course ordered, and their results directed to be declared.

Richa and Anr. Vs Kurukshetra University… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.11407 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.11407 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 09 -02-2011

Richa and another

....Petitioners

VERSUS

Kurukshtra University, Kurukshetra and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶11

Present:Mr.Girish Agnihotri Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal , Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondents

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶14

The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not issuing roll numbers to them for 2^nd year examination of B.Sc. Nursing course despite the fact that they have completed 1^st year examination and have fulfilled all the eligibility conditions.

¶15

The brief case as set up by them is that they had applied for B.Sci (Nursing). The eligibility condition as per the form given out by the college (Annexure P-7) provided conditions which were at variance than the one which were prescribed in the form.

¶16

The admission having been granted to the petitioners in the year 2007, the same was cancelled by the Kurukshetra University in December 2007 forcing the petitioners to come to this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

¶17

At the time of issuance of notice of motion this Court granted

¶18

¶19

CWP No.11407 of 2009

¶20

the petitioners the permission to continue with their course provisionally, but made it clear that the order of this Court would not confer any equitable right in their favour. It was also stipulated in this order that the result of the petitioners shall not be declared without the leave of the Court. The petitioners thereafter continued on the strength of this order dated 31.7.2009 and further by the order dated 20.5.2010.

¶21

As a consequence thereof they have completed four years of their course and are nearing its completion. The case of the petitioners having been outlined as above, the grievance stands crystalized as thus:they were not made aware of any other condition which was contrary to the eligibility conditions given out in the form while the respondents stand is that the University calendar provided for eligibility conditions which are not in conformity with the ones given out in the form and they thus being bound by the provisions of the University calendar, the action of the cancellation of the admission is well justified. The relevant clause of the ordinance of the Kurukshetra University calendar Vol. II giving out eligibility conditions is as below:-

¶22

“2.1 A person who shall attain the age of 17 years or more on December 31^st of the year of admission and has passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (12 year Course)/Senior School Certificate Examination (10+2)/ Pre-Degree Examination (10+2) or an equivalent Examination with 12 years schooling with at least five subjects including Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English with minimum of 50% aggregate marks (PCBE) from a Board/Institute recognized by Kurukshetra University, shall be eligible to join

¶23

CWP No.11407 of 2009 3

¶24

the 1^st year B.Sc. Nursing Course. A candidate getting compartment in 10+2 Examination will be considered for admission in case he produces the proof of passing qualifying examination (10+2) on the day of counseling.

¶25

Provided that the percentage of marks, as specified above, will be reduced to 40% in case of the candidates belonging to SC/ST.”

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the respondents is unsustainable.

¶27

The case of the petitioners is that they were not made aware of eligibility conditions as contained in the calendar apparently does not seem to be mis-placed. The form that was given out to them contained the eligibility clause which the petitioners fulfilled and they were thus very well within their rights to respond to it to meet their aspirations of undergoing the course which was being offered to them. If the eligibility condition as given in the form is at variance with the provisions of the ordinance of the Kurukshetra University then it is the college which has to be faulted with and not the petitioners. The University in its wisdom did not take action against the college but has left the students to be penalized for it. It is not the case of the respondents that there had been any mis-representation on the part of the petitioners and if that be so, then there is no reason to deprive

¶28

the petitioners of their right to complete the course. That apart the petitioners have produced the minutes of the admission Committee of 18^th July, 2007 which is taken on record as mark 'A' and which reveals that the University was represented by its own nominee who acted as a observer

¶29

CWP No.11407 of 2009 4

¶30

during the process of admission and upon giving his stamp of approval has acquiesced to the process of the admission and cannot at this stage back out of the decision to say that the petitioners' admission to the course was invalid. In case titled as Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra AIR 1976 SC 376, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶31

“Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear.”

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned action of the respondents in cancelling the admission of the petitioners is held to be illegal and unsustainable. The petitioners continuation in the course shall not be disturbed for the reason aforesaid and their results shall be declared.

¶33

February 9 , 2011 rekha

¶34

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Richa and Anr. v. Kurukshetra University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Richa and Anr. v. Kurukshetra 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

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhag Singh Vs Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University and Ors.

Bramhm Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Narinder Kaur & Anr. Vs Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Managing Committee, Arya H. S. Mandi Phul Vs Atma Prashad Singh and Ors.

Anand Parkash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.