Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kajal Sharma vs Panjab University on 5 November, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 2404 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 2404 of 2012
Date of decision : 05.11.2012
Kajal Sharma .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Panjab University, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Munish Bansal, Advocate
for the respondents.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
In June-July 2008, the petitioner was admitted in B.A. LLB (Hons.) Five year integrated course after being selected through competitive examination. In April 2009, the petitioner completed her first and second semester. In July-August 2009, the petitioner sought migration to respondent No. 3/Panjab University, Chandigarh. Her request for migration was accepted on 23.11.2009. It was notified that the petitioner was running short of 27 lectures. Respondent No. 3 constituted three members Committee to consider the lecture shortage cases. The petitioner appeared before the Committee and the Committee recommended that the shortage of lectures be Civil Writ Petition No. 2404 of 2012 2 condoned. The petitioner was issued roll number for the examination, which was to commence on 27.11.2009. The petitioner went to appear in the examination. She was not permitted to take the examination. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by way of CWP No. 19368 of 2009. Under the directions of this Court, the petitioner could appear in the remaining examination of 3rd semester. This writ petition was finally allowed on 09.04.2010. The petitioner was provisionally permitted to appear in the examination and was also ordered to be promoted to 4th semester.
By the time the petitioner reported to join the University, classes for 4th semester were already over. The petitioner submits that she was forced to sign an undertaking stating that she would attend 4th semester classes without which she would not be allowed to appear in 4th semester examination. The petitioner, accordingly, was permitted to appear in 4th semester external examination, which she cleared. When the petitioner approached the authorities to conduct her internal examination, she was informed that entire staff was busy and her internal examination for 4th semester would be conducted in the 5th semester. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the authorities but still internal examination for 4th semester was not conducted. The petitioner repeated the request while she was in the 6th semester and was finally informed that the examination for the 4th semester examination could not be conducted on the ground that she did not attend 75% of the lectures of 4th semester. The petitioner, accordingly, is before this Court through the present writ petition. Her grievance is that the action of the University Civil Writ Petition No. 2404 of 2012 3 would make her lose one year.
Respondent/University has joined issues in regard to number of lectures in the reply filed. The petitioner was having shortage of 61 lectures in 3rd semester instead of 27 as stated by her. It is also pointed out that before her migration she was having shortage of 34 lectures at Ludhiana, which was not supplied and total number of short lectures was 61.
Reference is also made to the undertaking which the petitioner had herself signed, whereby she had agreed to complete her attendance of 4th semester alongwith other semesters. Reference is also made to Rule 4 of the Admission Rules, which requires 75% attendance of the lectures in every semester. It is because of shortage of these lectures that the petitioner has to attend the lectures before her internal examination of 4th semester could be so conducted. Counsel for the petitioner has been making submissions on various dates to direct the counsel to conduct her internal examination of 4th semester.
Somewhat similar issue arose in CWP No. 15546 of 2011 titled as Pankuri Sundra versus The Punjab University and others, which was decided on 27.07.2012. That was also the case of examination B.A. (Hons.) LLB 5 years integrated course. The petitioner's trouble is not much as far as examination of 3rd examination is concerned. The petitioner did not attend even single lecture of 4th semester. Of course, the petitioner would attribute this to the conduct of the University, which did not allow her to attend the classes of 4th semester. Be that as it may, the actual position as on Civil Writ Petition No. 2404 of 2012 4 today is that the petitioner had not attended even single lecture of 4th semester. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had appeared in external examination of 4th semester under the orders of this Court. Part of the assessment for internal examination is made for attendance. Thus, the petitioner cannot be properly assessed. Somewhat similar situation has arisen in the case of Pankuri Sundra (supra) and this Court held as under:-
" Mr. Anupam Gupta, senior counsel appearing for the University has pointed out that the petitioner had not attended even single lecture of first semester. As disclosed, when the petitioner was granted admission under the orders of this Court, the examinations were due to commence and so this was the peculiar situation for which the petitioner could not attend even single lecture delivered. This is the dilemma, which now confronts the petitioner. The University was still required to have instructions in case some solution could be found in this case. Counsel for the University today submits that after completing 7 semesters or the complete study up to 10 semester, the petitioner can attend the classes for first semester and on completion of requisite number of lectures, she would be permitted to appear in the first semester examination.
Counsel for the petitioner is justified in making grievance that this may make her lose a complete one year. The efforts were made to find if some legal solution is possible to this problem but I could find none. This proposal of the University is finally accepted by the counsel for the petitioner and it is so approved. The petitioner shall be permitted to attend the classes of first semester either on completion of 7th semester or on completion of study up to 10th semester, as per her Civil Writ Petition No. 2404 of 2012 5 convenience. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the examination for first semester and her result shall, accordingly, be declared. The petitioner would be at liberty to move for damages, if she feels aggrieved against the action of the University in denying her admission leading to this loss in the career of the petitioner."
In the meantime, the petitioner has gone on to 8th semester. The apprehension of the petitioner is that, in case, she is made to attend the lectures of 4th semester, she would lose one complete year. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in this case, I would request the University to make some arrangement to consider, if the petitioner could be allowed to attend the lectures of 4th semester alongwith other current session in progress, may be in evening session. This should not be cited as precedent in future. This is being held considering the peculiar facts this case as the petitioner has appeared in external examination and only internal examination remains. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would have to attend the classes of 4th semester before she is validly allowed to qualify in LLB examination, if the University is unable to make this arrangement as a special case for the petitioner. The petitioner, however, would have to meet requirement of attending the classes of 4th semester before fully qualifying in the examination.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
November 05, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE