HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9293 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.11.2011 **** Uttam Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Haryana State Board of Tech. Edu. & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana Mr. Jastej Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a student pursuing Diploma in Civil Engineering in respondent No.3-Institute. Since he was not issued Roll No. for the 2nd Semester examination in Civil Engineering which was scheduled to be held from 18.05.2011 to 06.06.2011 that he has approached this Court. (2). The respondents, particularly respondent No.3 came up with a plea that as per the Regulations, a candidate was required to earn 80% attendance in the classes so as to become eligible to appear in the 2nd Semester Exams. Whereas the petitioner got 38% attendance only. CWP No.9293 of 2011.doc - 2 – (3). Be that as it may, a Co-ordinate Bench vide an interim order dated 25.05.2011 permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination provisionally and subject to the outcome of the writ petition. (4). In order to find out as to whether the issue raised in the writ petition is rendered academic or survives on merit, respondent No.3 was directed to produce result of the petitioner in a sealed covered. (5). The result in sealed cover has been produced in Court today, which has been opened, perused and returned to Mr. Jastej Singh, counsel for respondent No.3. (6). As per the confidential result, the petitioner has failed in all the papers and is required to re-appear. It does appear that the petitioner is not a serious student who not only failed to attend the classes regularly but has performed very poor in the examination. In these circumstances, no case to issue the desired writ is made out. (7). Dismissed. (8). The petitioner, if so entitled under the Rules, shall be permitted to re-appear in the examination. Similarly, this order shall have no effect on the orders passed by the competent authority regarding shifting of the students including the petitioner to some other College. CWP No.9293 of 2011.doc - 3 – (9). Dasti . 16.11.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge