CWP No.4347 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.05.2010 Anuradha ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate. Mr.RKS Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner applied for admission to the Post Graduate Diploma in Nutrition and Dietetics at Government College for Women, Rohtak, for the Session 2009-2010. She was admitted to the Course and allotted the roll number. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee of Rs.4782/- and started attending the classes. The admission of the petitioner has been cancelled vide the impugned order dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure P-7) on the ground that the petitioner was ineligible at the time of admission. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. It is established fact on record that when the petitioner applied for admission to the course in question, she had reappear in one paper in the B.A. Final examination. For admission to the aforesaid course, the respondent-University had issued admission Brochure for the year 2009- 2010. The eligibility prescribed for admission to the Post Graduate Diploma in Nutrition and Dietetics has been prescribed in the admission CWP No.4347 of 2010 2 Brochure itself. The relevant extract of the Brochure is reproduced hereunder:- “16. P.G. Diploma in Nutrition and Dietetics. A Bachelor's degree of this University or an Examination recognised as equivalent thereto with B.Sc. Home Science and B.A. with Home Science having 50% marks in aggregate. A weightage of 5% will be given to the students who have passed B.Sc. Home Science/B.Sc. Human Nutrition and Dietetics.” From the reading of the aforesaid condition, it is evident that for admission to the Post Graduate Diploma in Nutrition and Dietetics, a candidate should possess Bachelor degree of the respondent-University or a degree equivalent thereto with B.Sc. Home Science and B.A. with Home Science having 50% marks in aggregate. Indisputedly, the petitioner had no degree at the time of her admission to the course aforesaid as she is having re-appear in one of the papers of B.A. Final Examination. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner never misrepresented or committed any fraud at the time of admission. The petitioner in her application form had clearly and categorically mentioned about her re-appear in the B.A. Final examination. Thus, the respondents knowing fully well the ineligibility of the petitioner admitted her to the course. The respondents have also charged fee and permitted the petitioner to pursue the course for more than seven months and at this belated stage terminating the study course is CWP No.4347 of 2010 3 impermissible in law. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ajeet Kumar Tripathi and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1998 (4) RSJ, 183. In this judgment, it has been observed that if the admission has been granted by no fraud having been practised by the candidate the said candidate has studied for a long way, it is improper later on to cancel his admission. A Full Bench judgment of this Court in a later judgment dated 10.07.2009 passed in CWP No.15852 of 2008 (Jasdeep Singh vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences) and other connected writ petitions, also considered the question of admission to ineligible candidates. On examination of the entire controversy, the Hon'ble Full Bench has categorically held that ineligible candidate cannot be permitted to pursue the course to maintain the standard of education. Admittedly, the respondents have over looked the ineligibility of the petitioner at the time of admission. At the same time, it was the duty and obligation of the petitioner as well not to have applied when the petitioner was admittedly ineligible at the time of making the application for the course in question. The petitioner cannot shift the responsibility to the respondents and seek benefit of her ineligibility. It was improper on the part of the petitioner to have applied and sought admission when she was not eligible. The Brochure prescribes the eligibility condition which was in the knowledge of the petitioner and despite that she sought admission. In view of the above dictum of the Full Bench judgment of this Court referred to hereinabove, no right is created in the petitioner merely on the ground that she has pursued the course for quite some time. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. At the same time, the respondents CWP No.4347 of 2010 4 are directed to refund the fee charged from the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. 07.05.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES