LPA No.319 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. LPA No.319 of 2009 in CWP No.6091 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.7.2009 Deepti Malhotra ...Appellant. vs. Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA. --- Present: Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. 1). The State Government authorised the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra to invite applications from eligible candidates for taking a Common Entrance Test for admission to the B.Ed course for the academic session 2008-09. 2). The appellant who was desirous of taking admission to the B.Ed course applied for the same. In response to her application she was issued Roll No.8200820 for appearing in the Common Entrance Test. She actually appeared in the aforesaid Common Entrance Test, wherein, she was placed at serial No.20380, based on the marks obtained by the appellant in the Common Entrance Test, she was granted admission to undergo the B.Ed course atVishwa Bharti College of Education, Jagadhri. LPA No.319 of 2009 2 3). It would be pertinent to mention that as per the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, candidates who had obtained at least 45% marks in the Bachelor's and/or Master's degree issued by certain defined universities, or any other equivalent qualification, were eligible for the aforesaid course. In the application form submitted by the appellant, she had while filling up Serial No.17 of the application form recorded she she had qualified the B.Sc examination from the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra under Roll No. 1013500, having taken the aforesaid examination in the subjects of physics, chemistry and mathematics. She also asserted at serial No.17 of the application form, that she had obtained 694 marks out of a maximum of 1450 marks while equalifying the B.Sc examination. In the last column at serial No.17, she also depicted the percentage of marks obtained by her i.e., 47.8% in the aforesaid B.Sc examination. 4). It is not a matter of dispute that after being allowed admission to the Vishwa Bharti College of Education,Jagadhri, the appellant started to attend her classes in the aforesaid college with effect from 23.9.2008, and she continued to do so till 13.3.2009. 5). It is the case of the appellant that on 4.4.2009, she was handed over a letter dated 29.1.2009 by the Vishwa Bharti College of Education Jagadhri, informing her that her admission has been cancelled on the basis of a communication dated 22.1.2009 reeived from the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra. 6). The appellant impugned the aforesaid orders dated 29.1.2009 and 22.1.2009 by filing CWP No.6091 of 2009. The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by a lerned Single Judge of this Court on 23.4.2009. LPA No.319 of 2009 3 The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, so as to impugn the orders dated 22.1.2009, 29.1.2009, as also, the order rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2009. 7). On 4.5.2009, this Court issued notice of motion. Since CWP No.6091 of 2009, was dismissed without issuing notice, it is apparent that no reply was filed by the respondents at the writ stage. In order to place the factual position on the record of this case, respondent No.1 i.e., the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, has moved Civil Miscellaneous No.1235 of 2009, to place on the record of this case the inquiry report dated 15.4.2009, which was conducted by the respondents, to examine how the appellant came to be admitted to the B.Ed course. The prayer made in the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Application, was not opposed. Accordingly, the aforesaid civil miscellaneous application is allowed, and the inquiry report dated 15.4.2009, is permitted to be taken on record. 8). The first contention advanced by the learned coounsel for the appellant while advancing his submissions in the instant appeal was, that as per the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, general category candidates having 45% marks in the Bachelor's degree were to be considered eligible for admission to the B.Ed course. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had secured 694 marks out of a maximum of 1450 marks, i.e., 47.8% marks in the qualifying examination (i.e., the B.Sc examination conducted by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra) and as such was fully eligible to be granted admission to the B.Ed course. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was rightfully allowed admission to the aforesaid course by treating her eligible, LPA No.319 of 2009 4 in view of her merit position in the Common Entrance Test, conducted by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the action of the respondents in cancelling the admission granted to the appellant to the B.Ed course vide orders dated 22.1.2009 and 29.1.2009 (referred to above) is liable to be set aside. For the same reasons, as has been noticed hereinabove, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge is also liable to be set aside. 9). The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, has expressly been pressed in paragraph 5(iv) of the instant Letters Patent Appeal. So as to substantiate her claim of eligibility the appellant has placed reliance on Annexure P-8 i.e., the Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card issued to the appellant-Deepti Malhotra by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, in respect of the B.Sc.Part-III (General) Examination, held in April 2008. In the aforesaid Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card, the result of a candidate is declared under one of four heads. The four heads depicted under the Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card taken from Annexure P-8 are being extracted hereunder:- “1. Passed and has obtained ( hundered and marks) 2. Compartment: He/She is required to re-appear in the subject Physics (I) (II) till April 2009 3. Failed:He/She is required to re-appear in the whole Examination next time, if otherwise eligible. 4. Result Cancelled due to Failure in Lower Examination” While declaring the result of the appellant vide Annexure-P8 Serial Nos. 1, LPA No.319 of 2009 5 3 and 4 had been cancelled. Serial No.2 was depicted as under:- “2. Compartment: He She is required to re-appear in subject Physics (I)(II) till April 2009”. It is apparent from the Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card of the appellant placed on the record of the writ petition as Annexure P8, that she had actually not passed the aforesaid examination. Had she passed the aforesaid examination her details would have been declared under head-1 extracted hereinabove, whereas, it is clear from the factual position recorded hereinabove, that her result was declared under head-2, as she had merely been placed under compartment, on account of not having been able to qualify the subject of physics. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant had made a false representation in the application form, wherein, she depicted that she had obtained 694 marks out of the maximum of 1450 marks in the B.Sc examination, and that, she had qualified the said examination with 47.8 % marks. The depiction of percentage of marks, is possible only when a candidate qualifies an examination. The depiction of 47.8 % marks at the hands of the appellant was therefore, a categoric misrepresentation at her hands for deceitfully obtaining admission. In Civil Miscellaneous No.1235 of 2009, filed on behalf of the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, it has been emphasised that the appellant filled up the form depicting falsely that she had passed her B.Sc. examination. The application reveals that at the time of her consideration for admission she had informed the authorities that the detailed marks certificate issued to her had been misplaced and further that, she had applied for a duplicate Detailed Marks Certificate. In the Civil Miscellaneous Application, it is also revealed that the appellant appeared in the compartment examination in the subject of physics in LPA No.319 of 2009 6 October 2009, the result whereof was declared on 2.1.2009, but the appellant's individual compartment result was declared on 30.1.2009, wherein she qualified the compartment examination of the subject of physics in which she had been placed under compartment. The inquiry report appended to the Civil Miscellaneous Application as Annexure R1/1 reveals that even while appear before the Admission Committee of the Vishwa Bharti College of Education,Jagadhri, the appellant told the Admission Committee of the College that her Detailed Marks Card of the B.Sc examination had been misplaced, and that she had applied for a duplicate copy thereof. She also affirmed before the Admission Committee that the marks mentioned by her in the admission form were true and correct. On the basis of the representation made by the appellant before the Admission Committee, her oral statement was accepted and she was granted admission to the B.Ed course. But it transpired later that she had manipulated her admission by falsely depicting in her application form,that she had been awarded 694 marks out of a maximum of 1450 marks in the B.Sc examination, and that, she had qualified the same by obtaining 47.8% marks. 10). In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, we are of the view that the appellant manipulated her admission to the B.Ed course. It is clear from the extract of Annexure P8, reproduced hereinabove, that the appellant was only placed under “compartment” as she had failed to qualify the physics examination of the B.Sc Part-III (General)Examination in April 2008. She had not “passed” the said compartment. Had she qualified the aforesaid exmination her result would have been declared as “passed” under head-1 (extracted in paragraph 9 above) whereas, her result was declared LPA No.319 of 2009 7 under head-2, as she had been placed under compartment. We have no doubt in our mind that the appellant could not have sought admission to the B.Ed course on the strength Result-cum- Detailed Marks Card Annexure P8,as she had not qualified the B.Sc examination in terms of the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra. As such, we find no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 11). The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has persuaded the B.Ed course ever since the commencement of the aforesaid course with effect from 23.9.2008 till 13.3.2009.. In conjunction with the above, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has now cleared the compartment examination, and as such, she should be allowd to pursue the B.Ed course in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. 12). It is not possible for us to accept even the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has not invited our attention to any provision under which the appellant could have been allowed admission to the B.Ed course, consequent upon the declaration of her result on 30.1.2009, whereby, the appellant qualified the B.Sc examination. The addition of marks at the hands of the appellant depicting the number of marks she had obtained in the B.Sc examination , as also her assertion, that she had qualified the aforesaid examination with 47.8 % marks was a matter of express misrepresentation at her hands. Allowing her admission on the basis of having qualified the compartment examination in January 2009,and to take an equitable view of the matter as she has attended the curriculum of the course from 23.9.2008 to 13.3.2009, would result in perpetuating the fraud committed by the appellant. The LPA No.319 of 2009 8 instant act of seeking admission by way of deceit cannot be countenanced. In the absence of any order, instruction, regulation, rule or statutory provision, whereby the last date for obtaining the minimum qualification for admission, can be extended beyond the date of finalisation of the admission process, the claim of the appellant cannot be acceded to. 13). No other contention, besides those noticed in the foregoing paragraphs were advanced on behalf of the appellant. 14). For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar ) Judge ( H.S.Bhalla ) Judge 1.7.2009 rk