LPA No. 203 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 203 of 2011 Date of decision:-10.02.2011 Diljot Singh son of Sh. Gurnam Singh, resident of H. No. 86, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Union Territory, Chandigarh. ......Appellant Vs Kurukshetra University, through its Registrar, Kurukshetra (Haryana) and others. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. The appellant/writ petitioner graduated from the Punjab University in the year 2007 securing 43.7 per cent marks. He applied for admission to the three year LLB Degree Course and, though not eligible as he did not have prescribed 45 per cent marks, he was admitted to the Swami Devi Dayal College of Law, Barwala in Panchkula District of the State of Haryana. On 07.11.2007, the Kurukshetra University to which the Law College was affiliated informed the Principal of the said Law College that as the appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible his admission in the College should be cancelled and his name be struck off from the roll of LPA No. 203 of 2011 2 candidates. Evidently, Swami Devi Dayal College of Law (respondent No. 5) did not do so but had in fact allowed the appellant/writ petitioner to sit in the first year LLB Examination that was held in the summer of 2008. The appellant/writ petitioner was successful in the said examination. Thereafter, he was allowed to attend the second year classes but at the time of the examination for the second year the University refused to allot a roll number to the appellant/writ petitioner as a result of which the appellant/writ petitioner could not sit in the initial part of the examination. However, subsequently the University allotted a roll number to the appellant/writ petitioner which permitted him to sit in six papers. After the examination was over the appellant/writ petitioner received a letter dated 05.06.2009 from the University to the effect that his result for the second year LLB examination will not be declared till the final decision of the University is taken with regard to his eligibility. However, according to the appellant/writ petitioner, notwithstanding the above, he continued to take part in the third year classes and on the eve of the third year LLB examination which was scheduled to be held in May, 2010 he had filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. In the writ petition filed the appellant/writ petitioner had prayed for a direction for declaration of his result in the second year LLB examination and a further direction for issuance of a roll number to the appellant/writ petitioner to appear in the third/final year LLB examination scheduled to start w.e.f. 15.05.2010. In the writ petition filed it was also prayed by the appellant/writ petitioner that he should LPA No. 203 of 2011 3 be allowed to appear in the three papers of the second year LLB examination which he had missed on account of late issuance of roll number. The stand of the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition, shortly put, is that though he may not have been ineligible, he was admitted to the first year course and had appeared in the first year LLB examination and partially in the second year exams also. The representation filed by and on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner to sit in the third year LLB examination has been kept pending by the University. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, he had attended the classes even of the third year and, therefore, at this juncture, the directions prayed for by the appellant/writ petitioner are fully justified. Reliance has been specifically placed on a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others (1990), 3, SCC, 23. Written statements have been filed on behalf of the Kurukshetra University as well as the respondent/College before the learned Single Judge. The stand of the University is clear and categorical. The appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible for admission and in fact the admission granted to him by the respondent/College was cancelled by letter dated 07.11.2007 addressed to the Principal of the College. The University does not, however, explain how a roll number could be allotted to the appellant/writ petitioner to appear in the first year LLB Examination in the summer of 2008 if his admission had already been cancelled on LPA No. 203 of 2011 4 07.11.2007. According to the University, in respect of the second year LLB examination the appellant/writ petitioner was initially refused a roll number. However, as the appellant/writ petitioner was allowed to appear in the first year LLB examination, inspite of his admission being cancelled, the matter was inquired into and pending inquiry the appellant/writ petitioner was provisionally allowed to sit in the remaining papers of the second year LLB examination. In the written statement filed, the University had specifically stated that the matter was considered at different levels i.e. by the Dean of Law as well as a Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor and finally a decision was taken that the appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible to be admitted in the LLB Course and, therefore, not entitled to sit in the examination. As the said decision had already been taken the question of allowing the appellant/writ petitioner to sit in the third year LLB examination does not arise. The written statement filed by the respondent/college, on the other hand, seems to lay emphasis on the fact that it was the University which had 'consciously' allowed the appellant/writ petitioner to take part in the first year LLB examination and also in a part of the second year LLB examination. On the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge took the view that as the appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible for admission no direction should be issued to maintain the admission of the appellant/writ petitioner to the LLB Course and furthermore no direction for declaration of results or any leave to appear in the LPA No. 203 of 2011 5 remaining papers of the second year or take part in the third year LLB examination would be justified. Thus, the learned Single Judge took the view that merely because the appellant/writ petitioner was admitted, the same would not be decisive of the further entitlements of the appellant/writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge also considered the case laws cited before him including the decision in Sanatan Gauda's case (supra) relied upon before us and came to the conclusion that none of the said decisions would assist the appellant/writ petitioner. In so far as Sanatan Gauda's case (supra) is concerned the learned Single Judge took the view that the question of eligibility was not an issue in the said case. It must also be noticed that the learned Single Judge while refusing any relief to the appellant/writ petitioner had however directed for payment of compensation to the appellant/writ petitioner by the University/College which issue remains un-agitated as on date by the University/College. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible for admission to the LLB Course. In fact, his admission had been cancelled by the University on 07.11.2007. Mere attendance in the classes or participation in some of the examinations cannot vest a legal right in the appellant/writ petitioner to complete the Course. In a situation where the appellant/writ petitioner is clearly ineligible for admission it is difficult to see how the principles of estoppel can be invoked against the respondents to allow the appellant/writ petitioner to complete the Course. That apart, any direction as prayed for by the appellant/writ petitioner would affect all other similarly situated LPA No. 203 of 2011 6 ineligible candidates. Such cases, though not before the Court, cannot be lost sight of. In the above situation, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the appellant/writ petitioner. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed by refusing admission. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 10.02.2011 Amodh