Dismissed

Gourav Raj Agnihotri (Directions) v. Kurukshetra Uni. Kurukshetra

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2012CWP/8065/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought a Bachelor of Engineering Degree via a mercy chance due to attendance shortfall in the 8th semester after 24 years of admission. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that University Regulations barring degrees after 8 years prevented granting the degree, and a 2002 interim order did not create a vested right.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no degree was granted.

Gourav Raj Agnihotri (Directions) Vs… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8065 OF 1998 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 08, 2012

Gaurav Raj Agnihotri

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S. C. Sibal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. V. S. Rana, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. A. S. Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶15

¶16

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶17

Through this writ petition filed in the year 1998, the petitioner seeks mandamus commanding the respondents to award Bachelor of Engineering Degree (in electronics engineering) by giving a mercy chance to the petitioner to attend the classes of 8th Semester in two papers in which the petitioner was running short of attendance. The petitioner had prayed for this direction on the basis of his admission, which is got in the year 1988 at College in Srinagar (J&K).

¶18

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8065 OF 1998 :{ 2 }:

¶19

The first issue that would immediately invite attention is whether at this belated stage, this request of the petitioner in fairness would be possible or feasible to grant.

¶20

Facts as noticed shows that the petitioner passed his matriculation examination in 1986. Thereafter, he passed 10+2 examination in 1988, whereafter he appeared in All India Joint Entrance Test for admission to B.Tech. Engineering. The petitioner passed the same and was admitted at Regional Engineering College, Srinagar. In December 1988, the petitioner passed the Ist Semester examination with 75% marks. In July 1988, the petitioner appeared in the 2nd Semester and again qualified the same with 78% marks. Thereafter, no classes could be held for one year due to disturbance in Srinagar. Accordingly, no examination was conducted. In view of this, the Government of India took a decision to transfer 23 students admitted at Regional Engineering College, Srinagar to Kurukshetra Regional Engineering College vide order dated 14.5.1990. The classes for the 3rd semester commenced at Kurukshetra in August 1990. In December 1990, the petitioner appeared in the 3rd Semester. His result was declared as `result Later'. The petitioner, however, was allowed to continue to attend classes of 4th to 7th Semesters and also appeared in the examinations without any objection.

¶21

On 14.8.1992, while studying in 7th Semester Classes, respondent Nos.1 to 3 wrote to respondent No.4 College to issue migration certificate of the petitioner. Suddenly, the professors stopped calling the name of the petitioner on roll sheet with effect from January 1993. The petitioner claims that he was transferred as

¶22

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8065 OF 1998 :{ 3 }:

¶23

per Government order/decision and transfer certificate had already been submitted. There was no justification, therefore, not to permit the petitioner to attend the classes. The petitioner was also not apprised about any such condition prior to this date. The petitioner accordingly pleads that he could not be barred from attending the classes and the action taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 was discriminatory.

¶24

On 28.2.1993, the petitioner got a migration certificate prepared from respondent No.4 and submitted the same to respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner thereafter was allowed to attend the classes w.e.f. 8.3.1993. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner was apprised that he was running short of lectures in two subjects. The petitioner filed a civil suit and obtained some interim directions whereby he was allowed to take two examinations on 20.5.1998. Apparently, the petitioner had filed this suit after more than three years of the date he was informed about the shortage of lecturers.

¶25

To avoid explaining this delay, the petitioner has not given the date of filing the suit nor has offered any explanation for this inordinate delay. The petitioner, however, states that he was assured by the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 to withdraw the suit and they would take a lenient view thereafter. The petitioner, however, was informed that the decision has been taken to reject his case. The petitioner asked for detailed marks certificate and the provisional degree. Having remained silent about what transpired between 1998 to 2000, the petitioner has made a mention to the

¶26

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8065 OF 1998 :{ 4 }:

¶27

mercy chances given to similarly situated persons, who had failed in their examination. Subsequent development came on record as the petitioner was allowed to amend on petition filed in 1998. Otherwise, the petitioner when was not allowed to attend and appear in the examination on the pretext that he should first obtain migration certificate had filed a writ petition in the year 1998 with the prayer as already noticed.

¶28

Notice was issued and the respondents were directed to bring the result of the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time. When an amended writ petition was filed in the year 1999, the writ petition was finally admitted on 15.11.1999. Since then the writ petition had remained pending before this Court. Then another prayer for amendment of the writ petition was filed in the year 2002. Alongwith the said writ petition, a prayer was made for permitting the petitioner to attend 8th Semester classes. On 29.1.2002, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend 8th Semester classes but at the same time also observed that instant interim order shall not vest any right on the petitioner and his rights will eventually be determined on the final disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition has finally now been heard.

¶29

Mr.Sibal, appearing for the respondent-University, has pointed out this factual position and would urge that as per the University Regulations, a candidate who fails to pass the B.Tech. Examination within a period of 8 years of his admission to the course, shall be deemed to be unfit for degree in Bachelor of Technology

¶30

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8065 OF 1998 :{ 5 }:

¶31

Course at this University. On this count, Mr.Sibal would contend that no degree, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted at this belated stage, especially so when the petitioner has concededly commenced this course in the year 1988 and is yet to pass the course to validly get the degree.

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this factual position but only made a plea in equity, which according to him, may be due to him in view of the interim order passed in his favour, permitting him to attend 8th Semester classes vide order dated 29.1.2002.

¶33

No equitable consideration in the facts and circumstances of this case can be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner certainly can not be permitted to have a degree of B.Tech. Technical Course after 24 years of his admission to the said course. The interim order passed in the year 2002 was also almost 10 years ago and had specifically directed that this order will not vest any right to the petitioner. This would mean that this direction can not be considered to weigh any equity in favour of the petitioner. The case is required to be decided on merits. The Regulations of the University will create a total bar for award of degree at this belated stage. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition at this stage.

¶34

There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

October 08, 2012 khurmi

¶36

(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Gourav Raj Agnihotri (Directions) v. Kurukshetra Uni. Kurukshetra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gourav Raj Agnihotri (Directions) v. Kurukshetra Uni. Kurukshetra

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

Attar Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Kusum Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti Vs Maharishi Dayanand University and Ors.

Satish Kumar Vs Appeelate Auth.Cum.Addl.D.Judge & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Deepika Chuchra Vs State of Punjab etc. (Dismissed on 8.10.12)