Letters Patent Appeal No.359 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.359 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2011 Varun Kaushal ...Appellant Versus Kurukshetra University and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking a direction to allow the petitioner to appear in Ist semester of LL.B. examination which was to commence from 22.12.2010. The claim of the appellant was opposed by the University with the averment that he did not attend the requisite lectures in Ist semester and thus was not eligible for the examination. Even though he was promoted to 2nd semester, he did not attend the necessary lectures even in second semester. He then sought admission in 3rd semester by giving an undertaking to complete first and second semesters after attending requisite number of lectures and thereafter filed this petition. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal No.359 of 2011 -2- *** petition. It was held that petitioner could not be treated to have attended lectures as claimed and could not be allowed to appear in the examination. The finding recorded is as under:- “Concededly, the petitioner after grant of admission had never come to attend any class and attempt on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to dispute this factual position would rebounce on him in the form of Annexure P-3/1, where the petitioner himself has conceded the entire factual position. The petitioner has not made any grievance about he having not been permitted to appear in the Ist semester examination, which was held in December, 2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to 2nd semester. Despite that the petitioner has not attended even a single lecture of 2nd semester. The representation to the Vice-Chancellor would reveal so. If the petitioner had been attending the classes, as was the case made during the course of arguments, there was no reason for him to file representation Annexure P-3/1. The problem of the petitioner is further compounded from the fact disclosed in the reply that he has even not filled up the examination form for appearing in the examination, which is going to take place on 22.12.2010. Last date for depositing the examination form was 15.9.2010. The form could be deposited with late fee by 15.11.2010. The petitioner concededly has not filled up Letters Patent Appeal No.359 of 2011 -3- *** the examination form. The petitioner in this regard also made representation on 25.11.2010 to allow him to submit examination form, copy of which he has himself annexed with the petition as Annexure P/5. His request was declined keeping in view that he had not attended requisite number of classes and thus, there was shortage of lectures. As per the reply, the petitioner had attended only 70 lectures out of 384 upto 29.11.2010. In this background, his request for late submission of the examination form was not accepted. Counsel for the petitioner, however, pleads that being a casual student, he was not required to deposit any form. In this regard, counsel for the respondents refers to the representation Annexure P-5 filed by the petitioner. The heading of this reads 'Grant of permission to deposit examination form/fee for the Ist semester examination 2010-11 casual student, Roll No.281'. The submission that the petitioner was not required to submit examination form is contrary to the stand of the petitioner as projected in Annexure P-5. The net result is that the petitioner has neither fulfilled the requirement of attending lectures nor has submitted his examination form and it would be highly unjust in the facts and background of this case to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in examination.” Letters Patent Appeal No.359 of 2011 -4- *** We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who happens to be father of the appellant. He submitted that record of the university was not correctly maintained and the appellant had actually attended the classes. We are unable to accept the submission. There is no allegation of malafides. There is no acceptable reason to hold that record of the university was not proper. Admittedly the petitioner did not appear in Ist and 2nd semesters on account of shortage of lectures and at that stage no grievance was put forward. Grievance has been made only in third semester. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 25, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge