CWP No. 1641 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1641 of 2011(O&M) Decided on : 02 -02-2011 Simerpreet Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Sector 12, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. A.S.Kakkar, Advocate for Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Sibal , Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J The grievance of the petitioner is that she has excelled and has topped the examination of Bachelor of Physiotherapy course and deserves recognition by way of a medal in the convocation to be held on 4.2.2011. The respondents are not considering her case for the reason which has been disclosed in the reply which they have filed in response to the notice of motion and which is extracted herebelow:- “This is to inform you that the candidate Ms. Simerpreet Kaur who has got the highest percentage of marks and is eligible for silver medal had recently applied for the post of Junior Physiotherapist advertised in the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, PGI despite her result not have been declared. During scrutiny of applications, it was found that she instead of mentioning the word “result awaited” CWP No. 1641 of 2011(O&M) 2 she had wrongly mentioned her marks in the column “marks obtained” by showing herself to have passed even before the declaration of the result. Having came to know about this, she had submitted a written apology about this. Keeping in view the instructions approved by the Staff Council at its meeting held on 3.4.1979 (copy enclosed), the department does not find Ms. Simerpreet Kaur to be fit for the Silver Medal. As far as the name Ms. Shivani Panwar for the Bronze Medal is concerned, the Department found her fit and recommended her name for the Bronze Medal or Silver Medal, as appropriate. With regards, Yours sincerely, Sd/- (M.S.Dhillon)” The petitioner contends that she had no intention of mis-leading the respondents while making such a declaration before them at the time of seeking the appointment to the post of Junior Physiotherapist. The respondents on the other hand contend that the act of the petitioner was fraudulent and it is as a measure of benevolence that her candidature was not cancelled but she doe not deserve recognition for her fraudulent act. I have considered the matter. The petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Physiotherapist while responding to the advertisement and had erroneously filled up the column showing her qualifications as P.Ph.T and having passed the same in the exam of 2009 by obtaining 70 % marks. This information was obviously incorrect as the result of the examination CWP No. 1641 of 2011(O&M) 3 had yet to be declared. For no plausible reason the said information was given and the petitioner paid for this lapse as she was not considered for the said post at all. In so far as her pursuing the course of Bachelor of Physiotherapy is concerned, the respondents have issued her a certificate showing that her conduct has been good and that she has been a good student which is also evident from the fact that she has scored the highest number of marks which when compared to the other students who are at no.2 and 3 shows considerable difference. The petitioner has scored 2105 out of 3100 marks while the other persons lower to her have scored 2056 and 2017 marks. The petitioner therefore cannot be penalized for a mistake for all times to come. As observed earlier she has already suffered by not getting the appointment and which was rightly declined to her because of the mis-statement made by her. But subsequently she had proved to be a good student and has also excelled in her course and it would thus be harsh to deny the rightful acknowledgment of her achievement. Besides, the petitioner has already apologized to the respondents and it is as a measure of that apology that she was permitted to continue with her course. On account of the aforesaid I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and that the petitioner be accorded the recognition for her achievement by giving her a medal on the convocation slated for 4.2.2011. Learned counsel for the respondents have stated that the other two candidates who were to get the medals have not been impleaded as a party and therefore if the prayer of the petitioner is granted then the person who is at no.2 will have to be pushed down and likewise the person at no.3 CWP No. 1641 of 2011(O&M) 4 will not get her medal. This should however be of no consequence, as it is clear that recognition of academic excellence by conferment of an honour necessarily has to flow on merit, and as on today no conferment has taken place. The said candidates at Sr.no.2 and 3 have not acquired any right and thus they are not necessary to be heard. The objection is negated. Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for grant of a medal in the convocation to be held on 4.2.2011. February 2 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge