CWP NO. 7089 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO. 7089 OF 2010 DECIDED ON 25.1.2011 Rakesh ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS And CWP NO. 7096 OF 2010 Praveen ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS And CWP No. 7110 of 2010 ……PETITIONER Hans Raj Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS And CWP No. 7111 of 2010 Anil Kumar ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS And CWP No. 7143 of 2010 Jai Bhagwan ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS And CWP NO. 7089 OF 2010 2 CWP No. 7116 of 2010 Bhupinder ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS And CWP No.7113 of 2010 Sat Pal ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS And CWP No. 7165 of 2010 Naveen Kumar ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. P.C.Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG,Haryana for respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) This order shall dispose of all the eight writ petitions i.e CWP No. 7089 of 2010 titled Rakesh v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7096 of 2010 titled Parveen v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7110 of 2010 titled Hans Raj v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7111 of 2010 titled Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7113 of 2010 titled Satpal v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7116 of 2010 titled Bhupinder v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7143 of 2010 titled Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 7165 of 2010 titled CWP NO. 7089 OF 2010 3 Naveen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, by a common order as in all the writ petitions, the question of law involved is the same. The short grievance of the petitioners herein is that they are students of ITI course being run by the respondents which course is of one year and commenced in January 2009. They attended the classes upto January 2010. As per the requirement, they were to attend a total of 80% lectures so delivered. In the said session,261 lectures were delivered and the lectures attended by all the petitioners are given below:- Name of the petitioner Lectures delivered Lectures required Lectures attended Shortage % of Lectures attended Rakesh 261 208 199 9 77.00% Praveen 261 208 205 3 78.00% Hans Raj 261 208 205 3 78.00% Anil Kumar 261 208 195 13 75.00% Sat Pal 261 208 204 4 78.00% Bhupinder 261 208 204 4 78.00% Jai Bhagwan 261 208 204 4 78.00% Naveen Kumar 261 208 188 20 72.00% Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that with reference to the shortage of nine lectures, the respondents do not have any hard and fast rule to condone the shortage of lectures in the cases of students who have been found to have attended less than requisite number of lectures and the power to condone vests with the Director, who in ordinary circumstances, can condone the shortage upto one percent and in the given set of circumstances condone more in the eventuality of the person explaining the cause which prevented him from attending the requisite number of lectures. It has not been denied by the respondents that the CWP NO. 7089 OF 2010 4 Director has the power to condone the shortage upto 1% of the lectures. However, it has been contended by Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana with reference to the details of all the petitioners that one of the petitioners namely Anil Kumar son of Rajendra in CWP No.7111 of 2010, his name was struck off from the rolls on 26.3.2010, which fact the petitioner had concealed from this Court. In the cases of the other students, even if 1% shortage is to be condoned then also they do not make the grade. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the cases of Parveen Kumar son of Santosh Kumar, Jai Bhagwan son of Jai Pal, Bhupinder son of Shiv Kumar, Hans Raj son of Madan Lal who have to their credit 78.92%, 78.88%, 78.54% and 78.54% respectively, are granted the benefit of 1% of the total lectures, they would then have to their credit a fraction has than the required 80% lectures. Whereas the other candidates namely Rakesh Kumar son of Rameshwar Dayal, Naveen Kumar son of Ram Chander and Satpal son of Prahlad Singh even if granted the benefit of 1% condonation in shortage of lectures do not reach the required mark of 80%. The Court is of the opinion that the persons who remain marginally below than 80% in their lectures, deserve condonation of their lapse, considering the fact that such petitioners have attended the course for a substantial period. The Director, thus ought to have explored the possibility of exercising his discretion of condoning the lapse by granting 1% lectures in favour of the students. In so far as the cases of other candidates are concerned, except that of Anil Kumar son of Rajendra, the Court is of the opinion that the Director should grant them opportunity to explain the lapse and if found CWP NO. 7089 OF 2010 5 satisfactory may consider the grant of concession of condoning the lapse of these students. Since the name of Anil Kumar son of Rajendra has been struck off from the rolls and this fact has been concealed by the petitioner Anil Kumar in his petition, therefore, CWP No.7111 of 2010 stands dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, all the writ petitions except CWP No. 7111 of 2010 are disposed of with the direction to respondent no.1 to consider the cases of all the petitioners except Anil Kumar son of Rajendra in the light of what has been stated above and grant necessary relief to the petitioners, if justified. The needful be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 25.01.2011 ( MAHESH GROVER) mamta JUDGE