Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar v. Pb. Uni. Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2011CWP/13666/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his admission application to the LL.B. Evening Course, alleging unfair exclusion from the backward caste category. The High Court rejected a medical certificate as false regarding the petitioner's absence from counselling, noting no seats were available and he missed the deadline; thus, no ground for interference was found.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as there was no ground to interfere with the university's decision.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Pb. Uni. Chandigarh and… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.13666 of 2010

¶3

Date of decision : 10.2.2011

Sandeep Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab University, Chandigarh and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking admission to the LL.B.Ist Semester Evening Course for the session 2010-2011.

¶14

The petitioner made a grievance that he had applied against the backward caste candidate and had not been considered. He further contended that the BC Category was included in the current session even though in the initial schedule there was no BC category. The petitioner appeared in the test and was placed at Sr.No.565. Since the BC category was introduced, the petitioner prayed himself to be considered in the same category for which counselling was scheduled on 13.7.2010. The petitioner did not appear for the counselling and in this writ petition while making the grievance of non-consideration has referred to a medical

¶15

C.W.P.No.13666 of 2010 -2-

¶16

certificate (Annexure P-6) showing that he was unwell from 13.7.2010 to 20.7.2010. In the petition he has prayed that the respondents be also directed to consider his case.

¶17

The respondents have filed reply and have drawn the attention of this court to the certificate to say that it is palpably false , as in the averments made in the petition the petitioner has pleaded that he was unwell from 13.7.2010 to 20.7.2010 but if the averments made in paras 6 and 8 of the petition are to be seen, then according to him, he had made inquiries on 15.7.2010 by visiting the University. If he was unwell and incapacitated from 13.7.2010 to 20.7.2010, it is not conceivable how he made inquiries by personally visiting the respondents on 15.7.2010. Apparently, this story has been concocted by the petitioner. The certificate attached also does not show as to what ailment the petitioner was suffering from.

¶18

That apart, there is no seat available under the category and the petitioner who himself missed the counselling cannot be granted any benefit at this stage especially when the entire semester is almost over.

¶19

No ground to interfere.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

10.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶22

dss

Sandeep Kumar v. Pb. Uni. Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. Pb. Uni. 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

Richa and Anr. Vs Kurukshetra University and 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.

Chet Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Rajmal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Haryana State Selection Commission