IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6165 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.10.2011 Sandeep Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Guru Nanak Dev University and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of her admission in B.Ed. course in which she was admitted by respondents No.2 and 3 in the academic session 2010-11. (2) The petitioner's admission has been cancelled a day before she was to appear in the B.Ed. final examination. The petitioner was permitted by this Court to appear in the said examination provisionally vide order dated 06.04.2011 and as per the result produced today in a sealed cover she has got reappear in one paper in which the petitioner could not appear due to cancellation of her admission. CWP No. 6165 of 2011 [2] (3) The respondent University has justified its action on the plea that the petitioner was ineligible to seek admission in B.Ed. course for want of Graduation at the time of admission. It is averred that respondent No.3 college concealed material facts from the University and did not intimate as to whether the petitioner had completed her Graduation before the cut off date. The College on the other hand is accusing the petitioner for concealing those relevant facts. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5) In my considered view the plea put-forth by the college that the petitioner concealed material information cannot be accepted on the face of it for the obvious reason that a student who is coming forward to seek admission could very well be asked to produce the detailed marks card of Graduation failing which admission could be denied. The fact that the College chose to grant admission to the petitioner without production of such detailed mark-sheet does suggest that the college authorities did not act carefully. Be that as it may the action of the respondents in cancelling the admission of the petitioner at a belated stage when she was ready to appear in B.Ed. final examination does call for interference by this Court at least on equitable considerations, if not strictly in accordance with law. (6) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already spent one valuable year in pursuing the course and had acquired eligibility much before cancellation of her admission, I am inclined to allow the writ petition and set aside the order of CWP No. 6165 of 2011 [3] cancellation of her admission. Ordered accordingly. (7) The University is accordingly directed to officially declare the petitioner's result and thereafter allow her to re-appear in paper-I in the next examination as and when held. The aforesaid order, however, shall not preclude the University to take action against the respondent College for its mistake, if so permissible under the same. (8) Result brought today in a sealed cover be returned to the learned counsel for the University forthwith. Dasti. 19.10.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE