LPA No. 1165 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1165 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.7.2011 PEC University of Technology ....Appellant. Versus Sumit Gahlawat and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against interim order granted by the learned Single Judge directing admission of the writ petitioner to the first semester of B. Tech course in the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh. 2. The writ petitioner was admitted to B. Tech course in July, 2009. In examination held in December, 2009 and May, 2010 for first and second semesters respectively, the writ petitioner got 1.23 CGPA as against 5 and was also short of attendance. Accordingly, acting under Rule 8.4 of the Rules for BE students, Annexure P-7, the 'programme' was terminated. The father of the writ petitioner was also informed by giving a warning as per letter dated 28.4.2010, Annexure R-1. The student filed writ petition alleging non-compliance of procedure in passing of the impugned order by the University. The LPA No. 1165 of 2011(O&M) -2- University contested the writ petition by filing reply. 3. Learned Single Judge, vide impugned interim order, directed the student to be admitted to first semester and to be allowed to appear in examination. The operative part of the order is as follows:- “Before the Court embarks upon the interception of the Rule and the beneficial applicability to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to once again join the first semester and appear in the examinations which may be conducted by the respondent-college in the ensuring session/course for the first graduates of first semester.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed without there being prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. This is a case of undisputed poor performance and shortage of lectures. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the warning should have been given to the parents of the student in the beginning and in absence thereof, the order was illegal. 7. We find merit in the plea of the appellant and are unable to accept the submission of the respondent. 8. It is well settled that interference in matters of discipline and standards of education is permissible only if there is any illegality or irregularity. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra and others, LPA No. 1165 of 2011(O&M) -3- (2010) 10 SCC 264 and National Board Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy and others, (2006) 5 SCC 515. In the present case, there is no prima facie illegality in the impugned order. In absence thereof, grant of interim order, in our view, is not called for. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. 9. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for deciding the appeal against interim order and will not affect the merits of the writ petition and learned Single Judge will be at liberty to take final decision without being bound by this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 21, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE