CWP No. 6950 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6950 of 2009 Date of decision 25 .8.2009 Ved Parkash Sehtiya ... Petitioner Versus The Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ved Parkash Sehtiya, Petitioner in person Mr. Deepak sibal, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondentno.4 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for partially declaring Ordinance 6 of Punjabi University, Patiala as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a student of LL.B. three year Course and is studying at Rayat and Bahra College of Law which is affiliated to Punjabi University, Patiala. He appeared in the 5th semester reappear exam in December, 2008 and the result was declared on 13.4.2009. He has obtained 32 marks in Law of Evidence whereas minimum marks for passing the examination is 45. Accordingly, he was placed in reappear in the 5th semester in respect of 2nd paper namely Law of Evidence (P.1). He applied for rechecking/ re-evaluation on 28.4.2009 and claimed that result of the rechecking/ re-evaluation has not been declared. In the meanwhile he requested the respondent- University to accept his reappear form alongwith CWP No. 6950 of 2009 2 the required fee of examination which was to be conducted in May, 2009 alongwith 6th semester examination which has been refused presumably on the basis of Ordinance 6. The relevant extract of Ordinance 6 reads as under: “ Ordinance no. 6. xx xx xx xx xx xx A candidate placed under reappear in any paper, will be allowed two chances to clear the reappear, which should be availed within consecutive two years/ chances i.e. To pass in paper. The candidate will have a total of three chances one as a regular student and two as reappear candidate. The examination and the reappear papers of odd semesters will be held with regular examination of the odd semester and reappear examination of the even semester will be held with regular examination of even examination. But if a a candidate is placed under reappear in the last semester of the course, he will be provided chance to reappear with the examination of the next semester provided his reappear of last semester does not go beyond next semester........” The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the italic portion of the Ordinance which provides that examination and the reappear paper of odd semester are be held with regular examination of the odd semester and reappear examination of the even semester were to held with regular examination of even examination. The Ordinance further clarifies that if a candidate is placed in reappear in the last semester of the course he would be provided a chance to reappear with the examination of the next semester provided his reappear of last semester does not go beyond next semester. According to the petitioner if a candidate has to reappear in a paper in respect of 6th semester then he can give the examination in the very next semester whereas a candidate who is placed in reappear in the 5th semester CWP No. 6950 of 2009 3 to take the next examination only after one year. Having heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents we are of the view that the candidate of 6th semester who is on the verge of completion of his course is treated differently than the one who is in 5th semester. Both these type of candidates could take the examination by availing the chance to clear their reappear paper. The candidate who has to reappear in respect of 6th semester re-appear paper could appear alongwith the other candidates in the next semester which would permit a reappear candidate of even semester to appear in the examination of odd semester. The petitioner who is placed in reappear in respect of 5th semester examination could appear only in odd semester. Only equals could be treated equally. There is thus general principle for re-appear candidates namely those who have re-appear in odd they would appear for re-appear with the regular candidates of odd semester and even semester with that of even. An exception has been carved out for 6th semester candidate because he has to complete beyond the period of three years. The object of the exception is to allow him to appear at the earliest.The students who are yet to complete three year course have been treated differently. A candidate of 6th semester is left with no classes, no study and no examination except to clear reappear examination. The Ordinance comes to the aid of such a student so that he may complete his course at the earliest. Likewise a candidate having reappear in the 5th semester is to be treated differently. He is required to take his 6th semester examination study and complete lecturers. Moreover the courts are always slow in interfering in the matters concerning students' education and the decision of the University. Therefore, we find no element of legal infirmity violating the mandate of CWP No. 6950 of 2009 4 Article 14 of the Constitution. constitutional infirmity violative of article 14 of the constitution because Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Ordinance is arbitrary and suffer from the vice of any constitutional legal infirmity. The writ petition is wholly mis-conceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 25.8.2009 Judge okg