CWP No. 19045 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19045 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 30-03-2011 Tejinder Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr.Varinder Singh, Advocate for Ms.P.K.Sekhon , Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, AAG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J The grievance of the petitioner is that she had appeared in the second year examination of Arts and Crafts Course held in July, 2008 . She could not clear two papers i.e Commercial Art and Scale and Perspective Drawing. She availed the first additional chance in February, 2009 but failed to clear these papers. She then took second additional chance in July, 2009 but again failed. She then made another attempt to appear in the Arts and Craft course in February, 2010 and submitted the requisite application for the said examination. The fee was deposited by her on 22.12.2009 and she was permitted to take the examination alongwith few others. Thereafter, her result has not been declared and this has prompted her to file the instant CWP No. 19045 of 2010 (O&M) 2 writ petition. Upon notice of motion having been issued, respondents have filed their reply in which they have stated that the petitioner has no legally enforceable right in view of the notification and clause 3 thereof which permits the student a maximum of two additional chances in addition to the original chance for clearing the examination. The requisite clause 3 of the notification is extracted herebelow:- “3. To clear the second year examination, the student be given maximum two more chances.” It is thus the stated case of the respondents that in view of the fact that the petitioner was not entitled to avail of any other chance except the other two additional chances and she having failed to do so, she was not entitled to appear in the examination held in February, 2010. It has been stated that the permission granted to the petitioner was on account of a bona fide mistake which has been rectified and the result was withheld. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the stand of the respondents is totally unjustifiable. The petitioner having been permitted to take the examination the grant of which permission was not based on mis-representation, fraud or concealment of facts, cannot be now debarred from the said examination by withholding her result. It is the fault of the respondent-University for which the petitioner cannot be made to pay. Having accepted the fees and having issued the roll number and having permitted the petitioner to appear, the respondent cannot rake up a plea that it was on account of a bona fide mistake that the petitioner was permitted to appear. The exercise which the petitioner was permitted to undertake should therefore be carried to the logical end by CWP No. 19045 of 2010 (O&M) 3 declaring her result. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith. March 30, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge