COCP No.1682 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1682 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.12.2009 Sanjay Kumar Katwal ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dr. A.S. Brar, Vice Chancellor & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harjit Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Petitioner was admitted to the L.L.B Professional Course at Saint Soldier Law College, Jullundhar. Vide order/communication dated 29.3.2005, he was informed that his name was struck off from the Rolls of College on account of the fact that he was ineligible for admission to the Professional Course as his degree having passed M.A. (English) from Annamalai University was neither recognized nor equivalent to the M.A. Qualification of Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU) and since the petitioner had not qualified any Bachelor's Degree exam he could not be treated as eligible for admission. Petitioner filed CWP No.5692 of 2005 challenging the aforesaid order. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 5.7.2005 and the admission of the petitioner to the L.L.B Course was ordered to be restored. GNDU filed Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 5.7.2005. Vide judgment COCP No.1682 of 2009 2 dated 21.10.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court though held that the petitioner was not holding a valid degree for admission to L.L.B Course yet keeping in view the lapse of time etc ordered that admission of petitioner to Law Course be not cancelled. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the admission of the petitioner to the L.L.B. Course has been treated regular and his result for 1st and IInd semester of L.L.B. Course has been declared. However, grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that despite the fact that his admission to L.L.B Course has been treated as regular and he has already completed the 3 year Degree Course, his result is not being declared for the 3rd to 5th semester and he is not being allowed to sit in the examinations for the remaining semesters and has been asked to seek fresh admission in each semester commencing from 3rd semester onwards and thus, the aforesaid action of the respondents is in clear violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in CA No.2252 of 2006. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent- University is that there is no violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has been complied with as the admission of the petitioner to the L.L.B Course has been treated as regular and on the basis of that, his result has already been declared for the 1st and 2nd semester of the course. However, he did not complete requisite number of lectures in the remaining semesters in spite of the fact that the petitioner was at liberty to continue to take classes. Since the petitioner failed to complete the requisite lectures for 3rd semester and did not attend any lecturer for the remaining 4th to 6th semesters, he has been rightly asked to seek fresh admission in the remaining semesters. From the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the petitioner is COCP No.1682 of 2009 3 alleging violation of the judgment dated 21.10.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No.2252 of 2006. As is clear from the contents of the petition and as well as the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents ought to have been proceeded against Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 21.10.2008. However, in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and another v. Shri A.S. Guliani and another 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 570, this Court has no jurisdiction to initiate the contempt proceedings for alleged violation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy before the appropriate Court. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. Rule discharged. December 21, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE