IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2060 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 14th May, 2008 Savitoj Kaur … Petitioner Versus Registrar Panjab University and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Shergill, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 11th January, 2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Principal of respondent No.2 – DAV College, Abohar, Maharishi Dayanand Marg Abohar, whereby admission of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that she has secured less than 55% marks in B.Sc. Therefore, she was held not eligible to continue her studies in the college during Session 2007-08. It has been clarified in Annexure P-4 that her admission was provisional at her own risk and responsibility. Therefore, original documents, which were with the college, were sent back to her. The case of the petitioner is that respondent-college had issued a prospectus for admission to M.Sc. Part-I and petitioner has taken admission in M.Sc. Bio-technology as in the prospectus it was mentioned Civil Writ Petition No. 2060 of 2008 that eligibility is B.Sc. with at least 50 % of marks from any recognized university and that the candidate should have appeared in the Common Entrance Examination conducted by Panjab University, Chandigarh. Petitioner contend that she has secured 52.58% marks and she stood at No. 252 in Common Entrance Test and she has deposited Rs.39,000/- for her admission in M.Sc Part-I bio-technology. It is further contended that due to fault of the college, by publishing a wrong eligibility criteria, petitioner has taken admission and her one year is going to be wasted at the fag end of the academic session, because, University has stated that she is not eligible. This Court had issued notice of motion on February 12, 2008. Panjab University, Chandigarh – respondent No.1 has filed reply to the writ petition and has stated that as per Panjab University Calendar Vol.II, (2005) Regulation 2 at page 129, petitioner was ineligible for admission to M.Sc. as the petitioner obtained less than 55% marks in bachelors degree level. It also reproduced the following resolution: “Master of Science (2 Years Semester System) (Bio- technology) (Effective from the admission of 1989). 1. Duration of the course for the M.Sc. in Bio-technology, shall be of two academic years (Four Semesters). 2. A person with the following qualifications from the Panjab University or any other University/ Institution recognized by the Panjab University shall be eligible to join the course. Bachelor’s degree (under 10+2+3 patterns of education) in physical, biological, pharmaceutical, agricultural, veterinary or fishery science or Bachelor degree in engineering, technology, medicine (MBBS) from any University/ Institution recognized by the Panjab University. The candidate must have obtained 55% marks at the Bachelor’s degree level.” It has further been stated in the reply filed by the Panjab University that DAV College Abohar made a wrong admission in violation of 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 2060 of 2008 University rules and regulations and Panjab University has imposed a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh on respondent-DAV College, Abohar on 23.03.2008 for making wrongful admission of petitioner in violation of University rules and regulations. It has been urged that since there is no fault of the student, as an exceptional circumstance, we should direct the university to condone the deficiency in the marks and lower the criteria of minimum eligibility. We had adjourned the matter on April 30, 2008 for today, i.e. 05.05.2008 and called upon the counsel for the University to seek instructions. Counsel for the University states that the precedent to lower the eligibility criteria will not only land the university into numerous litigations but will be a precedent for colleges to make a wrong admission and then to seek condonation from this Court. We have heard counsel for the parties. We are afraid that we cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner as the prescribed standards of eligibility are to be strictly followed and even in the case of hardship, no relief can be made in favour of the petitioner. With these observations, present writ petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 14, 2008 rps 3