CWP No.7396 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 27.05.2010 Simrit Walia and others ... Petitioners Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. RS Manhas, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.RS Pathania,Advocate, for respondent No.3. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Reply has been filed by Mr.Amrit Paul, today in Court. The same is taken on record. Copy given to the counsel opposite. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Vide order dated 01.04.2010 (Annexure P-1), the examination of English (Compulsory) paper of B.A. Part-II, held on 31.03.2010 at Pathankot, has been cancelled on account of mass copying. Simultaneously, the University also decided that the examination will be held again at Amritsar in the last week of May, 2010. Apart from that, an amount of Rs.1000/- per student was imposed as a fine. The petitioners are the students whose examination have been cancelled on account of mass copying. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the allegations, the petitioners has instructed him not to press the relief for cancellation of the examination. However, learned counsel for the CWP No.7396 of 2010 2 petitioners submits that imposition of fine as also change of examination centre is improper. Along with the reply a copy of the Syndicate decision dated 24.05.2010 has been placed on record. The Syndicate of the University has decided not to charge any penal fee from the students. This satisfies one of the grievances of the petitioners. Now the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the change of examination centre from Pathankot to Amritsar. Mr.Amrit Paul, learned counsel appearing for the University submits that in view of the circumstances and the fact that there was mass copying, the University has decided to conduct the examination at Amritsar in the University Campus itself. The decision of the University regarding the examination centre seems to be a prudent one and no interference is warranted. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 27.05.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE