IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21272 of 2010 Kanwal Preet Vs. Punjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh & others Present: Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner passed Bachelor of Arts (General) in (10+2+3) system and obtained 1115 marks out of 1600. Subsequently, she appeared in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the University for LL.B. 3 Years Professional Course and obtained 41.25 marks out of 75 and she was ranked No.316. The petitioner could not apply for admission in time on the ground that she looked for the result on the Internet as per the schedule and thereafter went to deposit the form on the basis of a date given in the prospectus. At the time of deposit, the petitioner realised that the result has been declared on 29.6.2010 and the last date of submission of the form had already expired. The entire admission process was over on 10/11th July, 2010. The candidature of the petitioner accordingly was not considered. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition after lapse of nearly six months by pleading that she is very poor person and could not afford a lawyer. She had earlier represented and later sought assistance from the legal aid to explain the delay in making the present approach. The petitioner has primarily made an attempt to invoke sympathy. Her case, however, is required to be considered in accordance with law. She had delayed in submitting the form and reasons in this regard may be any. She cannot claim any preference and different treatment. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Civil Writ Petition No.21272 of 2010 : 2 : Sunil K. S. Panwar Vs. Registrar, Panjab University, 1990(2) Cri.L.J. 117 to urge that the petitioner can not be denied consideration for admission on the ground that course of study is nearly six months old. Facts in Sunil K.S.Panwar's case (supra) are different. In that case, admission of reserved category of wards of University employees was challenged. This Court did not disturb the said admission but found that right of the petitioner was violated and the petitioners have been denied their fundamental right for equal opportunity in the matter of admission to LL.B.Course in view of circular letter. The writ of mandamus was issued by giving direction to the respondents to admit the petitioners to LL.B.Course for the Session 1989-90 and they should be allowed to complete the course. The petitioners were accordingly admitted in the second semester. Even non-attendance of lectures was directed not to stand in their way to appear in the examination. The view adopted by this court in Sunil K. S. Panwar's case (supra) was in the facts of that case. Such a view in case of a person, who delayed in submission of the application and has come to the court after expiry of almost first semester cannot be considered for admission. The other case of Miss Kadambini Vs. The Panjab University Chd. And others, 1992 (1) Cur.L.J. 214, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not of late submission of the application but late submission of fee. The ratio in this case can not be applied to the facts of this case. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. November 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE