Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. Date of decision:14-2-2008 Abhijeet Partap Singh Chaudhary. ...Petitioner. Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. Atul Nehra Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sudeep Mahajan Advocate for respondents. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The petitioner has filed this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to admit him to 5th semester, B.A, LL.B. (Hons.) ( 5 years integrated course) of Panjab University, Chandigarh and further issue him roll number for appearing in 5th semester examination. Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -2- The petitioner is a student of B.A,LL.B (Hons.), ( 5 years integrated course). The first semester started in the year 2005-2006. The aforesaid course comprised of 10 semesters. In one year, a student is required to appear in two semesters, each semester consisting of five papers. In a year, a student is required to clear 6 papers out of 10 papers of two semesters and in two years, a student is required to clear 12 papers out of 20 enabling him to be promoted to the next year/semester. The petitioner has passed his first and second semester successfully and appeared in the third semester which commenced in the year 2006- 2007. The examination of third semester was held in the month of December, 2006 . The petitioner cleared only one paper out of five papers of third semester. Meaning thereby, the petitioner had cleared 11 papers out of 15 papers. The petitioner was promoted to the fourth semester. As per rules and regulations, a student has to clear 60% of the total papers. The petitioner appeared in the examination of fourth semester which was held in April, 2007 and in that examination, the petitioner could not clear even a single paper. The petitioner was not satisfied with the result of fourth semester. So, he applied for re- evaluation of the papers of the fourth semester on 21.8.2007. As the fifth semester was going to commence so the petitioner along with other similarly situated students submitted representation dated 18.10.2007 before the Vice Chancellor for declaration of re- evaluation result. The re-evaluation result of the petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -3- declared on 27.11.2007 which was affixed on the notice board on 3.12.2007. The petitioner was declared pass in paper-1 i.e. Paper of English and paper-3 i.e. Paper of Law of Contract. Meaning thereby that till fourth semester, the petitioner had cleared 13 papers out of 20 papers. As per stipulation for further promotion to the fifth semester, a student has to clear 12 papers out of 20 papers whereas in the case of petitioner, the petitioner had duly cleared 13 papers out of 20 papers. It is further averred that vide interim order dated 5.12.2007,similarly situated students were allowed to appear in the fifth semester examination of B.A, LL.B.( Hons.) (5 years integrated course). Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint written reply in which it is pleaded that the petitioner had cleared 11 papers out of total of 20 papers and he was to clear 12 papers out of 20 papers for admission to the fifth semester and accordingly the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the fifth semester. It was admitted that the petitioner was declared pass in two papers and subsequently fulfilled the requirement of clearing 60% of papers upto fourth semester for promotion to the fifth semester. However, University Regulation No.12 under the heading 'Re-evaluation of Answer Books' at page 398 of Panjab University Calendar', Volume III, 2005 bars admission on the basis of re-evaluation result after 15th of October of the relevant year, in a Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -4- course having semester examination. The fifth semester teaching schedule for session 2007-2008 was over on 21.11.2007 and even the examination of the fifth semester was over on 19.12.2007. So, the fifth semester had come to an end when the process of examination thereof was over. Now, the fifth semester shall commence only in July, 2008 and the examination for the same shall take place in November- December,2008. In view of the said situation, it is not possible to promote the petitioner in the fifth semester. The petitioner cannot be promoted straight-away to sixth semester, firstly, because there is no provision or Regulation in the University Calendar which provides for admission straight-away into the sixth semester without the student even taking admission in the fifth semester. The students who have not put in the requisite percentage of attendance as prescribed by the Bar Council of India under its rules are not eligible for appearing in the examination. If any student is permitted to appear in the examination without requisite percentage of attendance, it is a clear violation of rules of the Bar Council of India and the students who obtain degree without putting the required percentage of attendance will not be eligible for enrollment as an Advocate. In the replication, it is pleaded that the petitioner was wrongly declared re-appear in two papers of fourth semester and he was declared pass in those two papers on 27.11.2007. Since the University failed to declare result within reasonable time, it cannot Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -5- punish the petitioner for its own fault or delay by referring to Regulation 12. Similarly situated student Mr. Sehraj Singh Virk of the petitioner batch approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.16952 of 2007 for permission to study in fifth/sixth semester of course. The said student was allowed to join the course and take examination from 5.12.2007 by the University on the issuance of notice of motion. Similarly situated student had also been permitted by the University to join the fifth semester after 15.10.2007 without applying the bar in regulation No.12 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be barred. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. So far as facts of the case are concerned, the same are not in dispute. The petitioner was admitted in B.A, LL.B.(Hons.) ( (5 years integrated course) in the first semester in the year 2005-2006. The aforesaid course comprised of 10 semesters. In one year, a student is required to appear in two semesters, each semester consisting of five papers. In one year, a student is required to clear 6 papers out of 10 papers of the two semesters in the first year and similar number of papers in the second year i.e. he has to clear 12 papers out of 20 papers in the first two years for his promotion to the fifth semester. The petitioner was declared successful in 11 papers out of 20 papers and he was further declared successful in two more papers on the basis of Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -6- result of re-evaluation. So, he was declared successful in 13 papers out of 20 papers in the fourth semester and as such he was eligible for promotion to the fifth semester. It is also not disputed that the petitioner applied on 21.8.2007 for re-evaluation and the re-evaluation result was declared on 27.11.2007. To our mind, the result of re- evaluation shall relate to the date when the original examination was held. The petitioner has been deprived of his admission in the fifth semester on the ground that he has not cleared 12 papers out of 20 papers upto fourth semester. Delay has occurred on account of the fact that the University had failed to declare the result of re-evaluation of the answer sheets within the stipulated time. The petitioner is not to be blamed. The petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss if he is made to loose one academic year. In authority Rupali Mamta Jain Versus The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 2000(1). S.C.T 301, a Single Bench of this Court held that the University cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. A Division Bench of our own High Court in Deepa Versus Maharishi Dayanand University and others, 2003 (2) Recent Services Judgments 129 held that Gold Medal cannot be with-held on the ground that the numbers of the petitioner have increased due to re-evaluation. In this case, the learned counsel for the respondents has taken objection that since the petitioner would not be able to attend the classes of fifth semester and the requirement of fixed number of Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -7- lectures as per rules and regulations of Bar Council of India would not be fulfilled, the petitioner be allowed to join the fifth semester from July, 2008 and the examination of the same shall take place in November/December, 2008. This point has been duly dealt with by a Single Bench of our own High Court in Sandeep Versus Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, 1998(4) SCT 563 in para No.5 of the judgment which is reproduced as under:- “Shri Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the University has, however, argued that the University was in duty bound to follow the Directive Annexure R1/1 issued by the Bar Council of India and as this circular provided that no admission was to be made after the cut off date fixed for admission and as the norms with regard to the attendance of lectures fixed by the Bar Council of India were to be followed, the petition could not succeed. To my mind this argument lacks merit. It cannot be denied that the directives issued by the Bar Council of India pertaining to the legal profession must be honoured and given full respect but such a Directive cannot displace the University Statutes as the same have statutory force. The resolution of the Bar Council Annexure R1/1 must thus give way to the Ordinance. As already mentioned above Rule 6 of the Ordinance gives a right to a student to seek admission Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 2007. -8- provided certain conditions are fulfilled under that Rule. Admittedly, the petitioner has complied with the Rules in question.” The same Regulation of the Bar Council of India, as that of Annexure R1/1 has been relied upon by the counsel for the respondents. So, accepting the above observation, we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lapse on the part of the University in delaying the result of re-evaluation. Therefore, we accept this petition and direct the respondent-University to allow the petitioner to join classes of sixth semester forthwith. The respondents shall arrange for extra classes so as to complete the syllabus of fifth semester. The petitioner shall be allowed to appear in the examinations of fifth and sixth semesters and the remaining un-cleared papers of third and fourth semesters in accordance with the Rules of the University. ( K. C. Puri ) Judge February 14 ,2008 (Ashutosh Mohunta ) Jaggi Judge