IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.8087 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.4.2011 Shobha Kumari ....Petitioner Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Anil Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Rohit Dheer, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.N.R.Dahiya, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.5549 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.5550 of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record. C.M.No.5858 of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record. C.W.P.No.8087 of 2009 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that the result of the petitioner has since been declared which was his prime grievance. He further refers to the counter affidavit filed by them revealing that in fact there was a notification enlarging the eligibility condition of 50% rather than 45% which was earlier in existence and the notification came into existence from 2001 and it was on account of inadvertence that the petitioner was admitted even though he did not have the eligibility as prescribed by the University. He contends that in view of the fact that certainly some lapse had occurred at their end, the petitioner as a one time measure is permitted to pursue the course and the consequent result validated. Upon evaluating the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, I am of the opinion that no grievance survives in the petition after the University has accepted its lapse and has declared the result of the petitioner thereby validating and legitimising the course that he has pursued. Disposed of as having become infructuous. 27.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss