CWP no. 3629 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 3629 of 2011(O&M) Decided on : 13-05-2011 Sahil Singla ....Petitioner VERSUS Panjab University through its Registrar ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.L.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is a student of Law Department in the respondent-University and had admitted himself to a three year law course beginning from session 2010-2011. As against the requisite 75% attendance which is required, the petitioner fell short of attendance, as a result thereof his admission has been cancelled and he has been directed to take admission afresh by undertaking a competitive examination once again. This is the cause of the grievance of the petitioner. He contends that the regulations of the University do not provide for any such course. Reliance has been placed on Rule 6.1 which is extracted herebelow:- “6.1 (a) Promotion from 1st to 2nd, 3rd to 4th and 5th to 6th semesters shall be allowed to a student who fulfils the attendance and other requirements under the rules, even if he CWP no. 3629 of 2011(O&M) 2 fails to appear or qualify in the papers prescribed for 1st, 3rd or 5th semesters as the case may be. (b) Promotion/admission to 2nd year (3rd semester) or 3rd year (5th semester) shall be allowed to a student provided he has passed in 5 out of 10 papers prescribed for 1st year (1st and 2nd semesters) and 10 out of 20 papers prescribed for 1st and 2nd year (1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th semesters) as the case may be. (c) A candidate shall be allowed to appear in the 1st and 2nd semesters, 3rd and 4th semesters and 5th & 6th semesters examination within 3 years of his joining 1st, 3rd and 5th semester as the case may be.” The respondents who are on notice have filed their reply. They have justified their decision by referring to regulation 6.1 (a) of the Panjab University Calendar Vol.II page 388 which is extracted herebelow:- “Promotion from 1st to 2nd, 3rd to 4th and 5th to 6th semesters shall be allowed to a student who fulfulls the attendance and other requirements under the rules, even if he fails to appear or qualify in the papers prescribed for 1st, 3rd or 5th semesters as the case may be. xxxxx. A student of 1st semester who fails to fulfill the required attendance as per rules will not be eligible to be re-admitted in the Department except by qualifying the entrance test afresh.” It is their contention that they interpret this regulation to mean that the student of first semester who failed to get requisite attendance wil not be eligible to be re-admitted in the Department except by qualifying the CWP no. 3629 of 2011(O&M) 3 entrance test afresh. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the interpretation given by the University on the regulations which they rely upon is totally mis-placed. A bare perusal of the regulation shows that no such intent is evident. The regulation 6.1 (a) which has been pressed into service by the respondents to justify their action of cancellation of the admission of the petitioner and forcing him to take the entrance examination afresh merely says that promotion from 1st semester to 2nd, 3rd to 4th and 5th to 6th semester shall be allowed to a student who fulfils attendance and other requirementss under the rules, even if he fails to appear or qualify in the papers prescribed for 1st, 3rd and 5th semester as the case may be. It is interesting to note that merely because a person fulfills the attendance but does not take the examination he shall be permitted to take the examination for the successive semester subject to satisfaction of other regulations which are prescribed by the University but if a person fails to fulfill attendance in the first semester he is required to be re-admitted to the Department by taking the qualifying entrance examination afresh. There being no such provision or intent visible in the regulations, I am of the considered opinion that action of the respondents is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the interpretation placed by the University is passed as a logical corollary to the regulation and such a decision has been approved by the Syndicate. Be that as it may be, in view of the fact that regulations are silent as far as this aspect is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondents is unsustainable in the eyes of law. CWP no. 3629 of 2011(O&M) 4 Consequently, the action of the respondent is held to be un-warranted and accordingly quashed and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner shall be permitted to attend the classes for the first semester upon meeting requisite regulations and he may be permitted to continue with the course subject to the rules and regulations of the University. Hence, the petition stands allowed. May 13 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge