Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JASPREET SINGH versus REGISTRAR/DEAN (EXAMINATIONS),PUNJABTECH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaspreet Singh v. Registrar/Dean (Examinations),PunjabTech - CWP-19191-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 6307 (31 August 2006)

C.W.P. No.19191 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No.19191 of 2005

Date of decision: August 28, 2006

Jaspreet Singh V. Registrar/Dean (Examinations),PunjabTechnical University,Jalandhar and others

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Present: Mr. D.K.Kaushal,Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Atul Nehra,Advocate, for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.

The petitioner is a student of J.D. Institute of Management and Technology, Bathinda, respondent No.3, affiliated with Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, respondent No.2, in the course of Bachelor of Computer Application. He had been admitted in the said course in the year

2000. The duration of the aforesaid course is three years. The petitioner completed his studies of three years in May,2003 but could not pass some subjects. As per the University ordinance 23(IV), he could clear the reappear subjects in the next 1-1/2 years i.e. in a total period of 4-1/2 years from the date of his admission, upto December,2004. In these circumstances, the petitioner was permitted to take his re-appear chances in the examination held in December,2004 but at that point of time he was found involved in an unfair means case (UMC). The UMC Committee found him guilty and cancelled his result for December,2004/January 2005 C.W.P. No.19191 of 2005 2

examination and disqualified him from appearing in any examination for a period of next two semesters. The petitioner never challenged the aforesaid order dated February 8,2005 passed by the UMC Committee.

However, he wanted to appear in the examination which was to be held in December,2005 and consequently submitted his examination fee on October 31,2005 along with the application form. The petitioner was not permitted to appear in the aforesaid examination nor the roll number for the said examination was issued to him. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this court through the present petition.

Vide an interim order dated December 9,2005, the respondent- University was directed to issue a roll number to the petitioner and allow him to provisionally appear in the examination to be conducted in December,2005. However, it was directed that the result of the petitioner shall be retained in a sealed cover and shall not be declared except on an express order passed by this court.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondent-University. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has been maintained that the duration of the BCA Course in which the petitioner had taken admission in the year 2000 is three years and the maximum duration allowed to pass/complete the said course is 4-1/2 years, as per the University Regulations. The respondents have maintained that since the petitioner was permitted to take re-appear chances in December ,2004, in which examination he was found involved in an unfair mean case, therefore, his result for December,2004/January,2005 was cancelled and he was disqualified from appearing in any examination for a period of next two semesters.

According to the respondent-University in the meantime the maximum period of 4-1/2 years had expired and, therefore, even after the petitioner had fully undergone the punishment, he did not remain eligible to appear in C.W.P. No.19191 of 2005 3

any examination after December,2004, to pass the reappear subjects. The respondents University has also pleaded that in terms of the latest notification dated February 22,2006,the maximum time limit to complete the course had been extended and the students have been granted additional chances to take the reappear examination. Consequently, the University has maintained that under the aforesaid notification the petitioner would get three additional chances to take the regular examination on account of the maximum time limit and is now eligible to appear in the May,2006 examination. The said written statement was filed by the respondent- University on April 16,2006.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that as per the original regulations, the petitioner could avail all his chances to appear upto December,2004, i.e. within 4-1/2 years of his taking admission in BCA Course. However, it is also clear from the stand taken by the respondent-University that as per the latest notification dated February 22,2006, the petitioner is entitled to three additional chances and eligible to appear in the examination in May,2006.

We have already noticed in the earlier portion of the judgment that an interim direction was issued in favour of the petition on December 9,2005 and the respondents were directed to issue a roll number to the petitioner and allow him to provisionally appear in the examinations to be conducted in December,2005. It is the conceded position between the parties that in terms of the aforesaid permission, the petitioner has since appeared in 3rd

, 4th

, 5th

and 6th

semesters

provisionally. However, the result of the petitioner has not been declared so far by the University in view of the interim orders. Consequently, we find that the aforesaid appearance of the petitioner in the examination, C.W.P. No.19191 of 2005 4

although under the interim direction of this court is liable to be construed as his appearance in the examination in terms of the notification dated February 22,2006.

In view of the aforesaid fact, we allow the present petition and direct that the examinations in which the petitioner had appeared in terms of the interim order dated December 9,2005 shall be construed to be the chances in which the petitioner is entitled to appear in terms of the notification dated February 22,2006. The University is, thus, directed to declare his result in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to take all further chances, if permissible and required,in terms of notification dated February 22,2006.

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

(Viney Mittal )

Judge

August 28,2006 ( H.S.Bhalla )

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.