Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GANGANDEEP SINGH BHULLAR versus PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gangandeep Singh Bhullar v. Punjab Technical University & Ors - CWP-1908-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2501 (23 April 2006)

CM 1908 of 2004 and 1

CWP 16565 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.16565 of 2003

Date of decision: April 5,2006

Gangandeep Singh Bhullar V. Punjab Technical University and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri A.K.Walia, advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri Atul Nehra, Advocate, for the respondent-University.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

The prayer made in the present application is for issuance of a direction to the respondent-University to issue the detailed mark sheet as well as the degree on the basis of the fact that the petitioner has already cleared the examination.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

Petitioner,Gagandeep Singh Bhullar, got admission in B.Tech.

Course in the year 1997 at Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib. The aforesaid College was affiliated with Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. It is the admitted position between the parties that the duration of the Course is of four years. As per the then existing University regulations, a candidate had to clear the aforesaid Course within a period of six years from the date of initially joining the Course. In these circumstances, the petitioner was required to complete the aforesaid course till 2003.

CM 1908 of 2004 and 2

CWP 16565 of 2003

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner could not clear the aforesaid Course till the year 2003 as he was placed in re-appear category in some of the subjects. The petitioner after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six years, applied to the University for the grant of a mercy chance to clear the re-appear subjects. His prayer was declined. Consequently, the petitioner has approached this court through the present petition.

By way of an interim order dated November 25,2003, the petitioner was allowed to take the re-appear examination of the Ist, 2nd ,4th and 5th Semesters. The petitioner so appeared in the examination, Subsequently under further orders of this court, the result of the aforesaid examinations were also declared. The petitioner still was placed in re-appear category with regard to one subject i.e. Linear Control System. The petitioner requested this court to get his answer sheet re-evaluated by another expert. Vide order dated September 5,2005, the answer sheet of the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid subject of Linear Control system was sent for re-evaluation to Director, Punjab Engineering College. The aforesaid answer sheet was so re-evaluated by the Director, Punjab Engineering College. The re-evaluated answer sheet of the petitioner was received by this court. It was disclosed to this court that the petitioner had been awarded 26 marks as against 70 marks originally awarded to him for the subject of LCS (Electronics) Ivth Semester of B.Tech.Course. The aforesaid answer sheet as well as the re-evaluated marks were ordered to be placed in a sealed cover.

A civil miscellaneous application being CM No.3609 of 2006 has been filed by the writ petitioner. Along with the aforesaid application.

CM 1908 of 2004 and 3

CWP 16565 of 2003

A notification dated February 22,2006 has been appended as Annexure A/1.

On the basis of the aforesaid notification , it has been averred in the application that the University has itself decided through the aforesaid notification to provide further period for clearing the Course by amending the rules wherein it has been provided that maximum duration for clearing all subjects of a particular course shall be twice the duration of the respective regular course. On that basis, a prayer has been made that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the amended regulation.

Notice of the application be issued. Shri Atul Nehra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the University.

Shri Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University has very fairly informed the court that the notification dated February 22,2006 has been issued by the University whereby the original regulation has been amended and the maximum duration for clearing all subjects by a particular candidate has been extended. However, Shri Nehra pointed out that the University has decided that the aforesaid extended chances are to be availed of by a candidate between January 1,2006 to December 31,2007. On that basis, Shri Nehra points out that since the petitioner had appeared in the supplementary examination prior to the period fixed in the notification,therefore, the chances availed by the petitioner would not be included in the aforesaid notification.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length,I find that the technical objections raised on behalf of the University is only hyper-technical.Once the University itself chosen to extend the period,through the notification dated February 22,2006 and a candidate has CM 1908 of 2004 and 4

CWP 16565 of 2003

been granted additional chances to clear the course and a period twice ;he duration of the respective regular course has been provided , then because the petitioner had appear in the examination under the interim orders of this court which period in any case is prior to the dates so fixed by notification, the said examination undertaken by the petitioner under the interim order s of this court would be deemed to be inconformity with the notification dated February 22,2006( annexure A/1).

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and it is directed that the supplementary examination under taken by the petitioner under the interim order of this court shall be deemed to have been so undertaken by him in terms of the notification dated February 22,2006. In this view of the matter, University is duty bound to declare the result of the petitioner for the aforesaid examination. The petitioner shall also be entitled to receive his detailed mark certificate and degree as a consequence of his passing the aforesaid examination.

The re-evaluated answer sheets retained by this court in a sealed cover be returned back to the University for further necessary action.

Necessary ac;ion shall be taken by the University within a period of four weeks from the day a certified copy of this order is received.

CM as well as the main writ petition stand disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order be given dasti on usual charges.

April 5,2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.