IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.583 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 03, 2009 Amit Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjeev K. Tamak, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Ahmad, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in final theory papers (3rd Semester) for the course of Diploma in Civil Engineering of the State Board Technical Examinations commencing w.e.f. CWP No.583 of 2009 [2] 2.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner took admission in Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak, Haryana (respondent No.3) in Diploma Course in Civil Engineering through Central Entrance Examination of the Diploma in Engineering Programmes (DEP 2007). The petitioner completed the 1st and 2nd Semester examinations successfully. The petitioner was promoted to the 3rd Semester. In the 3rd Semester, the petitioner attended the classes of theory and practical and submitted his permission –cum- admission form for appearing in the State Board of Technical Education Haryana Exam. On 19.11.2008, however, father of the petitioner met with an accident which resulted in his death. Due to consequent circumstances, the petitioner could not attend the classes thereafter. Death Certificate has been appended as Annexure P-3. The petitioner was sick in the month of September 2008 and therefore, he had to be hospitalised. Medical Certificate has been appended as Annexure P-4 to justify the absence of the petitioner from the Institute. Principal of the Institute had been informed about the hardship faced by the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to take practical examinations by respondent No.3, held w.e.f. 15.11.2008 to 17.11.2008. The datesheet was circulated for the CWP No.583 of 2009 [3] theory examinations of 3rd Semester that commenced w.e.f. 2.1.2009. When the petitioner wanted to appear, he was not allowed to sit in examinations. When the petitioner met the Principal of the Institute, no reason was assigned, however, subsequently the petitioner was informed that there was shortage of lectures of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that no prior notice was given to the petitioner that he was falling short of lectures. The petitioner made a representation (Annexure P-5). It transpires that he had attended 67% lectures whereas the petitioner was required to attend 80% of the delivered lectures for theory and practical classes combined. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of his contentions, has cited judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.10630 of 2008, titled ‘Suresh Parmar vs. State of Haryana & Others’ decided on 3.9.2008. Learned counsel for the respondent- State says that because the rules allow the respondents only to give benefit to the petitioner to a limited extent, considering the rigours of the rules, no further relief could be given to the petitioner. The hardship faced by the petitioner, however, has been admitted. Learned counsel for the respondents however, have not been able to distinguish the judgment rendered in Suresh Parmar’s case (supra). CWP No.583 of 2009 [4] I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. When the facts are collectively considered, it becomes clear that the petitioner was successful in Central Entrance Examination scheduled for admission to the Course. The petitioner had been a regular student and has been able to clear 1st and 2nd Semesters also. The respondents have not disputed the factum of ailment of the petitioner, death of father of the petitioner and consequent hardship faced by the family. Clearly, the circumstances being faced by the petitioner were unusually harsh and beyond control of the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case entitle the petitioner to allow him to pursue his further studies as bonafide endeavour of the petitioner to pursue studies has been established. By virtue of interim order dated 16.1.2009, the petitioner was allowed to take examination for the 3rd Semester. The petitioner has already appeared. The ratio of the judgment delivered in Suresh Parmar’s case (supra) also helps the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to clemency and lenient approach. The petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue his studies. It is however made clear that the petitioner shall be CWP No.583 of 2009 [5] required to attend the classes as per rules and regulations for the 4th Semesters onwards. (AJAI LAMBA) March 03, 2009 JUDGE avin