LPA No. 1007 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.08.2010 1) LPA No. 1007 of 2010 Jatinder Kaur and others ..Appellants Versus Pandit Bhagwat Dayal University and others ..Respondents 2) LPA No. 1006 of 2010 Dilpreet Kaur and others ..Appellants Versus Pandit Bhagwat Dayal University and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** LPA No. 1007 of 2010 [2] MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of both these appeals as the common question of law and facts are involved therein. 2. These appeals challenge the orders of learned Single Judge dated 16.8.2010 whereby the petitions of the writ petitiones were dismissed in limine. The facts have been taken from LPA No. 1007 of 2010. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that in the session of 2008-09, the writ petitioners got admission in the Ist year B.Sc. Nursing course and appeared in annual examination held in the month of August, 2009 but could not clear the same and got the grade of reappear in some subjects. However, they were promoted to 2nd year of B.Sc. Nursing course after deposit of requisite fee for the second year and continued to attend the classes. In supplementary examination held in September, 2009, they again appeared in the examination of subjects wherein they had got the grade of reappear in Ist year examination but again failed to clear all the papers. Somehow they continued to attend classes of 2nd year B.Sc. Nursing course and paid the requisite fee and even submitted examination forms along with requisite fee for appearing in the examination of 2nd year examination to be held in August, 2010 by respondent No.1 through respondent No.3. It is the case of the writ petitioners-appellants that they were also issued Admit Cards to sit in the examination of B.Sc. Nursing 2nd year scheduled for 13.08.2010. It was further case of the petitioners that when they were taking examination of Ist paper i.e. Sociology on 13.8.2010, they were asked to leave the examination Hall pursuant to a LPA No. 1007 of 2010 [3] letter dated 13.8.2010 received by the Superintendent in Chief of the College which is to the following effect:- “ The roll Nos. to the following candidates of B.Sc. Nursing 2nd year have inadvertently been issued by the office as they are not eligible to appear in the 2nd year examination because of the reason that they have not passed their Ist year examination of B.Sc. Nursing. 8302, 8303, 8308, 8331, 8334, 8342, 8348, 8351, 8359, 8360. You are requested not to allow the above candidates to appear in the said examination.” 4. Feeling aggrieved by the directions contained in letter dated 13.8.2010, they filed Civil Writ Petitions No. 14526 and 14527of 2010 which were dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge on 16.8.2010. Hence the present appeals. 5. It is not in dispute that the admission to 2nd year is governed by Rule 5(iii) of the Rules which reads as under:- “ 5(iii) A person who has passed the first year B.Sc. Nursing Examinations of the University shall be eligible to join Second Year B.Sc. Nursing Course.” 6. It is not disputed rather was admitted by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the petitioners had got the grade of reappear in the Ist year examination of B.Sc. Nursing course, therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the petitioners were not eligible to appear in the examination of 2nd year Nursing Course. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that this Court in a Civil Revision No. 3207 of 2009 titled as Ajay Kumar and others V. Gaur Brahman Ayurvedic & Physiotherapy College Brahmanvas and another, decided on 30.5.2009 allowed provisionally the similar situated students of Bachelor of Physiotherapy LPA No. 1007 of 2010 [4] to appear in the next year examination. The plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants is not sustainable because in that case the Rules itself provided that a student getting the grade of reappear in examination could appear in the next examination but his result would be kept in abeyance till he clears the reappear examination. The situation in the present case is not analogous to those rules. Rule 5(iii) clearly applies in the present case and therefore, the writ petitioners who failed to clear the Ist year examination in all the subjects are not eligible to appear in 2nd year examination. Further more, no benefit of analogous situation could be granted to the students where they are prohibited by existence of a Rule for appearing in the next higher examination. Moreover, the analogous case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants is misplaced and cannot come to the aid of the appellants because in that case the Rules are quite different. Moreover, the Courts are not meant to rewrite the Rules. No interference is thus called for in the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) 18.08.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'