Civil Writ Petition No.11801 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.11801 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.9.2008 Kuldip Kaur and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Hemant Gupta, J. The petitioners have approached this Court against the action of respondents in not permitting them to appear in the re-appear examination for the second year of Art and Craft Teachers Training Course. It is the case of the petitioners that they were admitted in the Art and Craft Teachers Training Course in the year 2005. After qualifying their first year examination, they were admitted in second year of the said Course in the year 2006. However, the petitioners could not clear Civil Writ Petition No.11801 of 2008 2 the second year examination and got re-appear in some of the subjects. The petitioners appeared in the re-appear examination but failed to clear the same. The claim of the petitioners is that in terms of prospectus issued in the year 2005, the petitioners are to be granted five chances to appear in the re-appear examination of the second year and, therefore, action of the respondents in not granting five chances contravenes the conditions of the prospectus. Though no reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 but Mr. Rawal relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal and Another v. The State of Punjab (Civil Writ Petition No. 9541 of 2006 decided on 29.8.2006). In the said case, it was found that new examination rules have not been notified, therefore, the instructions issued on 21.1.2000 would be applicable. In terms of such instructions, student is to be given two more chances to clear the second year examination. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question which requires to be examined is whether the condition of five chances published in the prospectus for the year 2005 is a requisite publication of rules as it will govern the rights of the parties in respect of chances of examination. In the judgment referred to above by learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, it was found that new examination rules have not been notified. However, it appears that the prospectus for the year 2005, wherein such rules were made, was not brought to the notice of the Court. Even today, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 Civil Writ Petition No.11801 of 2008 3 could not point out that scheme of examination contemplating five chances is to be notified in any particular manner. In the absence of any prescribed manner of publication of notification prescribed, the publication in the prospectus granting five chances to second year student is the notification of the rules. Consequently, the action of the respondents in denying five chances in the second year examination is not justified. Consequently, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to grant five chances in terms of the amended Rules of examination published in the prospectus (Annexure P1). Since the petitioners have appeared in the re-appear examination of second year in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court, we direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners and take consequential steps, as may be necessary. The writ petition is disposed of. (Hemant Gupta) Judge (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 25, 2008 “DK”