IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6091 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 23, 2009 Deepti Malhotra .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The petitioner took admission in B.Ed Course, well knowing that a person with compartment in a subject was not eligible to take admission. The factum having come to fore, the admission has been cancelled under orders of the University, conveyed to the petitioner through the College where she took admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks refuge under judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008, dated 21.11.2008. Learned counsel contends that the judgment of the Division Bench has subsequently been followed and a person on similar footing as the petitioner, has been allowed the benefit. CWP No.6091 of 2009 [2] I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the petition. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008 in so much as it was a condition precedent for allowing admission to the students that the student should have been eligible for such admission to B.Ed Course. Admittedly, the petitioner was not eligible, even on 5.12.2008, i.e. the last date by which admissions were to be allowed under the cited judgment. Reliance has been placed on another decision viz. judgment dated 16.2.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.1060 of 2009 (Ms. Pooja vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra). The case of Ms. Pooja (supra) also does not give any benefit to the petitioner in so much as Ms. Pooja became eligible before the cut off date given under the Division Bench judgment of this Court viz. 5.12.2008. It is not in dispute that result of compartment examination of the petitioner was declared much after December 2008. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 23, 2009 JUDGE avin