CWP No. 9170 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 26.08.2009 Neelam Saini Vs. Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.AS Virk, Advocate,for the respondent No.1. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner passed B. Com. Part-III in April, 1997 and secured 827 marks out of 1850. The respondent-University issued advertisement for conducting State Level Common Entrance Test for regular B.Ed. Course for the Sessions 2008-2009. The petitioner also applied for consideration/admission. She was issued Roll Number and allowed to participate in the examination conducted by the University. She was placed at rank No.4294 in the Entrance Test and also granted admission in respondent No.2-College. The petitioner also deposited fee of Rs.40,520/- in September 2008. The petitioner was permitted to attend classes. It is stated that the petitioner was informed by the College that respondent No.1-University is not issuing the roll number for the annual examination. It is further stated that on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the she has been stopped from appearing CWP No. 9170 of 2009 : 2 : in the annual examination by the University having less than 45 per cent marks in the graduation and was ineligible for admission to B.Ed. Course. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition seeking a direction that she be issued roll number for appearing in the examination of B.Ed. to be held by respondent No.1-University in the month of June, 2009. In the reply filed by respondent No.1-University, reference is made to the prospectus issued which, inter-alia, prescribed the eligibility conditions for admission to B.Ed. Course. It is provided that a candidate with at least 45 percent marks in the Bachelor Degree or in the Masters degree is eligible for admission to the course in question. It is admitted position of the parties that the petitioner was having less than 45 percent marks. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has 44.75 percent marks in the B.Com. which was the qualifying examination for appearance in the Common Entrance Test. The petitioner was admittedly ineligible. The respondents have stated that admission of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 28.01.2009, copy whereof has been placed on record today in Court by Mr.Virk. The same is taken on the record of the case. This letter is addressed to respondent No.2. It appears that respondent No.2-College has not communicated this fact to the petitioner. CWP No. 9170 of 2009 : 3 : Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was ineligible at the time of her admission and, thus, the respondent- University has rightly cancelled her admission to the course in question. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was permitted to appear in the Entrance Test. Even she has been admitted to the course and allocated the College. Fee deposited by her has also been accepted by the college. It is accordingly argued that the petitioner had legitimate expectation to continue with the course. The argument of the petitioner though appears to be attractive, but suffers from total fallacy. The legitimate expectation cannot be extended to illegitimate purposes. The petitioner was found ineligible. She was wrongly permitted to participate in the Entrance Test and subsequent admission to the course. Now the discrepancy has come to the notice of the respondents. The petitioner has no right to continue with the course contrary to the laid down norms. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. CWP No. 9170 of 2009 : 4 : However, it is observed that since the petitioner is found ineligible, respondent No.2 is directed to refund the fee deposited by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. The petitioner is also at liberty to seek compensation from the respondents for granting wrong admission, in accordance with law. 26.8.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES