Dismissed

Cheena Sethi v. Registrar Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala, Jalandhar and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Apr 2016CWP/11269/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an MBA student, approached the Court seeking directions to allow her to appear in examinations for which she was denied entry due to shortage of lectures. The Court found the claimed shortage exceeded the prospectus condonation limit and no specific data was provided, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

null

Cheena Sethi Vs Registrar Punjab Technical… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

VINOD KUMAR 2016.05.05 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶2

CWP No.11269 of 2015 (O&M)

¶3

[ 1 ]

¶4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CWP No.11269 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:28.04.2016

Cheena Sethi

...Petitioner

Versus

The Registrar, Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala and another ...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶12

Present: Mr. S.S.Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *****

¶15

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

¶16

The petitioner, who is a student of 4^th Semester of MBA in the Apeejay Institute of Management, Technical Campus, Jalandhar, which is affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, has approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents may be directed to allow her to appear in the paper of International Human Resource Management of 4^th Semester, which was scheduled to be held on 30.05.2015, and also to give her special chance to appear in her first paper of Strategic Management for which she was not allowed to appear on 24.04.2015.

¶17

CWP No.11269 of 2015 (O&M)

¶18

[ 2 ]

¶19

VINOD KUMAR 2016.05.05 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

¶21

On 28.05.2015, the petitioner was allowed by this Court to appear in the examination which was scheduled to be held on 30.05.2015, making it clear that it was only a provisional arrangement.

¶22

The petitioner filed an application bearing CM No.4923 of 2016 in which she has prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue roll number/admit card to her to appear in the paper of Strategic Management, which was scheduled to be held on 29.04.2016. Since the main case was fixed for 05.07.2016 and the petitioner was seeking permission of the Court to appear in the examination, one after the other, under orders of the Court, therefore, it was found just and expedient by the Court to hear the main case itself and on 27.04.2016, on oral request of the counsel for the parties, hearing of the main case, which was fixed for 05.07.2016, was preponed to 28.04.2016 and the case was ordered to be listed in the urgent list.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that shortage of lectures of the petitioner was because of her ill health which were condoned by the respondents after imposition of fine on 24.04.2015.

¶24

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the lectures of the petitioner were short in the subject bearing CodeMP401 i.e. Strategic Management and the subject bearing Code-MB967 i.e. International Human Resource Management. The minimum attendance required in each subject was 75% but because of shortage of lectures, she was not allowed to appear and the amount of fine was charged on account of absence from mid-semester test and personal development programme etc.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the General

¶26

CWP No.11269 of 2015 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶27

VINOD KUMAR 2016.05.05 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

¶29

Information contained in the prospectus, in case of serious ailment, the Head of the Institution has been given the power to condone the shortage of lectures upto 10% of the delivered lectures. However, on a pointed question put to the counsel for the petitioner as to how many lectures were short in both the subjects and whether it would fall within the parameters of 10% shortage, no answer is given, in the absence of which benefit of Clause 6 contained in the General Information of the prospectus, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be given to her.

¶30

No other argument has been raised.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶32

April 28, 2016 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge

Cheena Sethi v. Registrar Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala, Jalandhar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheena Sethi v. Registrar Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala, Jalandhar and Another

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

Surjit Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Pooja Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pt Shiv Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar Popli

Manjinder Pal Vs State of Punjab etc.

Paramjit Sachdeva Vs State of Punjab & Ors.