Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. Panjab University and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2011CWP/17535/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order that barred the petitioner from proceeding in an MBA course due to absence in the 3rd semester. The Court held that the University could not hold the student responsible for its own delay in declaring the 3rd semester results, especially since the student cleared subsequent semesters and had passed the 3rd under interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to declare complete result and grant certification.

Sunil Kumar Vs Panjab University and Anr. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 17535 of 2009 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 17535 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 20-04-2011

Sunil Kumar

....Petitioner

VERSUS

The Panjab University, Chandigarh and another

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the respondents

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶13

The petitioner's grievance in the instant writ petition is that order dated 26.9.2009 (Annexure P-8) be quashed. As a consequence of the impugned order the petitioner's onward progress in the course of MBA (Executive) was thwarted on the ground that he had remained absent in 3^rd semester examination and therefore as a consequence of Rule 9(a), the petitioner could not be permitted to take his examination for the 4^th semester and consequently 5^th and 6^th semester as well.

¶14

Rules 9(a) and 10 are extracted herebelow:-

¶15

“ 9(a) A candidate who fails in the first or third semester but has secured at least 35% marks separately as well as jointly with internal assessment in not less than 50% of the papers prescribed for that semester shall be permitted to continue his studies in the second and the fourth semester respectively but he will be required to re-appear in the next April/May

¶16

CWP No. 17535 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶17

examination in such papers in which he had failed in the December examination simultaneously with the second or the fourth semester examination as the case may be.

¶18

If he fail to pass the first or the third semester examination even in the second attempt his result for the second or the fourth semester examination, as the case may be, shall be cancelled and he will be required to leave the course. 10. A candidate who fails in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth semester and is not covered under the reappear Regulation 9, may be given one more chance and allowed to appear at the next regular examination without attending a fresh course of lecturers but he will have to repeat the entire examination.

¶19

If a candidate fails to pass any semester examination even after repeating the entire examination, he will be required to leave the course.”

¶20

The result of the petitioner for the 3^rd semester having not been declared in time, he was permitted to undertake the 4^th semester course and the consequent examination as well. On declaration of the result for 3^rd semester, it transpired that the petitioner remained absent and was thus declared as fail in the said semester. This was the reason to stall the course of the petitioner leading him to file the instant writ petition. He took the examination for the 5^th and 6^th semester under the interim orders of this Court.

¶21

This Court summoned the result of the petitioner which has been produced in the Court in a sealed cover and the same is taken on

¶22

CWP No. 17535 of 2009 (O&M) 3

¶23

record. The provisional result sheet issued by the respondent-University reveals that the petitioner has successfully completed 5^th and 6^th semesters as well.

¶24

This leaves the Court to examine the controversy which in narrow confines only to whether the petitioner should be permitted to conclude the entire course or whether impediment of Rule 9(a) and 10 should be upheld so as to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of such programme/course.

¶25

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner concededly did not appear in 3^rd semester examination in the first instance which led him to be declared as failed. The result of this particular semester was declared at a belated stage and during this period, the petitioner had even completed the 4^th semester and taken admission in the 5^th semester as well. If Rule 9(a) is to be seen, then a person who does not clear 1^st and 3^rd semester is not to be permitted to pursue his 2^nd and 4^th semester. But it is the respondents themselves who first permitted the petitioner to continue with the 4^th semester ostensibly as a measure of compliance of Rule 9(a). Because of the undue delay caused by them in the declaration of the result for the 3^rd semester, the petitioner not only qualified the 4^th semester but also proceeded to be admitted to the 5^th semester as well.

¶26

In this situation, the respondents cannot absolve themselves of their liability and it is a settled principle of law that for the fault of University or institution, student cannot be made to suffer.

¶27

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be

¶28

CWP No. 17535 of 2009 (O&M) 4

¶29

set aside, moreso, when the petitioner has successfully completed all his

¶30

semesters including 3^rd semester.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

As a consequence thereof, the respondents shall declare the complete result of the petitioner and grant him the necessary certification in

¶33

accordance with law.

¶34

April 20 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

Sunil Kumar v. Panjab University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. Panjab University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Devender Sindhu Vs Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Anr.

Aditya College of Pharmacy & Science Vs All India Council for Tech. Education