Allowed

Kanchan Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Jan 2015LPA/1648/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the appeal modifying the single judge's order. It directed that the appellant's admission remains undis turbed while the University must admit respondent No.8 in the eligible category for the upcoming session.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's admission to remain undisturbed; University directed to admit respondent against choice seat in next session.

Kanchan Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

LPA No.1648 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.01.2015

¶4

¶5

Dr. Kanchan Sharma ... Appellant

¶6

VS.

¶7

State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Smriti Dhir, Advocate for the appellant

¶12

Mr. Rajender Goyal, Addl. AG Punjab

¶13

Mr. Munish Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶14

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.8

¶15

¶16

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶17

(1) On December 18, 2014, respondent No.8, who was the writ-petitioner before the learned Single Judge, took a fair stand that he does not want the admission of the appellant to be disturbed but of course he claimed himself entitled to admission against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category. A direction was accordingly issued to the University to verify the claim of respondent No.8.

¶18

(2) On December 24, 2014, it was stated by learned counsel for the University that while this year no such seat was available to accommodate respondent No.8, he will be given a seat of his choice in the next Academic Session.

¶19

V.VISHAL 2015.02.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

��

¶21

�� ��

¶22

(3) Today, the Registrar of respondent No.4-University has filed an affidavit to the same effect, namely, that respondent No.8 shall be adjusted against the seat of his choice in the Academic Session 2015-16 in MDS Course. Along with that affidavit, an undertaking-cum-consent of respondent No.8 has also been placed on record (Annexure R4/2).

¶23

(4) In this view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal by modifying the order passed by learned Single Judge and direct that while appellant’s admission shall remain undisturbed, respondent No.4-University and respondent No.8 would act upon in terms of their undertaking referred to above. We also grant liberty to respondent No.8 to seek further directions, if need be, during the period when admissions for the Academic Session 2015-16 would be made.

¶24

(5) Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶25

�� 

¶26

��  �� ��

¶27

V.VISHAL 2015.02.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Kanchan Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Sharma v. State of Punjab 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

Union of India Vs Gurbax Singh & Anr.

Harjinder Singh Vs Director, Rural Devlp and Panchayat Deptt. and Ors.

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayats Department Punjab and Ors.

Union of India Vs Darshan Lal Bali

Union of India and Ors. Vs Banarsi Dass

Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Central Admn. Tribunal Chandigarh & Ors.