IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 7613 of 2011-I. Decided on: 14th November, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Dimpal Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh University, Summerhill and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner appeared in B.A.-III examination held in the month of September, 2009. She was placed under compartment in the subject of English. Thereafter, she was permitted to appear in the examination in the months of March 2010 and September, 2010. She was placed under compartment in the subject of English in these two examinations as well. However, the petitioner was issued roll number, which enabled her to appear in the annual examination of March, 2011. Petitioner has secured 47 marks in the subject of English. However, the respondent-University has declared the petitioner failed vide Annexure P-3. 2. Mr. B.C. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent- University, on the basis of Ordinance 8.24 (a) has vehemently argued that the petitioner could not be permitted at all to sit in the examination held in the month of March, 2011. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was issued roll number 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - which enabled her to appear in the annual examination held in March, 2011. Petitioner has secured 47 marks in the subject of English in this examination. 3. Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has been permitted to sit in the examination by the respondent- University itself, the University is estopped from cancelling the examination vide Annexure P-3. He has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376. There is considerable merit in the contention of Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The marks- sheets of the earlier examinations issued to the petitioner were within the knowledge of respondent-University and this fact could be easily verified from the record. Thus, in these circumstances, the respondent-University is estopped from cancelling the examination of the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent- University is directed to declare the result of petitioner in the subject of English of B.A.-III examination within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the Controller of Examinations, Himachal Pradesh University, Summerhill, Tehsil Shimla (U), District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 14, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - - 4 - `