IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 8186 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.1.2010. Mandeep Kaur --Petitioner Versus Kurukshetra University and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for respondent no.1. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) In response to the prospectus issued by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak for admission to B.Ed Course petitioner applied for the session 2008-09. She was issued Roll No.641674. She had applied under Backward Class category. Petitioner participated in the entrance test and was declared qualified. She was allotted a private self financed college. It is alleged that the petitioner could not pay the fee of Rs. 50,000/- and thus she did not join the said course. The petitioner, however, approached respondent no.3 and was admitted to the course. Fee in the respondent no.3-college was Rs. 8575/- at the relevant time. The case of the petitioner is that she attended the classes and appeared in the final examination under Roll No. 212049 allotted by the university. When the final result was declared petitioner's result was shown as 'RL'. On inquiry, the petitioner was given a copy of a letter dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) addressed by the Assistant Registrar (R&S) of the Kurukshetra University to the Controller of Examination. It is communicated in this letter that the Registeration Branch has cancelled the admissions of six B.C. Candidates, CWP. No. 8186 of 2009 -2- who have taken admissions during the session 2007-08 without attending the counselling. A further reference is made to CWP No. 7299 of 2008 and other matters followed by the association of self financed B.Ed Colleges before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana seeking regularisation of the admissions made by them. These writ petitions were dismissed and later a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed. It is mentioned in the impugned letter that on the above basis the admissions of the candidates have been cancelled. Respondents were put to notice. The only plea raised in the reply by the university is that the Kurukshetra University had issued directions that no admission shall be made after 30.9.2007. However, the petitioner took admission after the said date. Accordingly, the admissions have been cancelled vide the impugned letter. In the reply reference is again made to a writ petition being CWP No. 6564 of 2008 dismissed by the High Court and SLP confirming the judgement of the High Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Except mentioning of some writ petitions neither any judgement of the Hon'ble High Court or Supreme Court has been produced. The reference is made to some judgement relating to session 2007-08 in the impugned order as well as in the reply. However, admittedly the petitioner took admission in the session 2008-09. During the course of the arguments, copy of the judgement dated 6.5.2008 passed in CWP no. 6564 of 2008 by this Court has been produced. Admittedly, in this case admissions were made to B.Ed Course for the session 2007-08 without counselling. Writ petition filed by Pt. Deen Dayal Rastogi College of Education for regularisation of the admissions came to be dismissed by this court. I am CWP. No. 8186 of 2009 -3- informed that a SLP also stands dismissed. To the contrary learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a reported judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1976 SC 376 titled as Shri Krishan V. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. In the aforementioned case, admittedly, the candidate was granted admission without eligibility. Student also appeared in the examination. Later the result of the student was not declared. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on consideration of the issue held as under:- “ It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the university to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the appellant permission to appear. Xxx xxx xxx There was ample time and opportunity for the university authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I Examination in April, 1972 then by force of the university statute the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant.” The aforesaid ratio is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. Respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.1.2010. lucky