IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No. 513 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.7.2009 Monika Kaushik ......Appellant Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University and others ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.B.L.Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Seema Pasricha Advocate for respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge against cancellation of admission in the B.Tech. 2. The appellant was given admission to the B.Tech by respondent No.3 - a private recognized engineering college, in the year 2008. Later it was found that she was not eligible and she had not passed the Physics (Theory) in 10+2 examination which was a necessary eligibility condition. Accordingly, respondent No.1- University informed the Engineering College vide impugned letter dated 9.3.2009 that she was ineligible for admission. 3. In the writ petition, the contention raised was that she was eligible as there was no requirement of her passing individual subject once she had passed 10+2 Examination wherein Physics was one of the compulsory subject. The requirement, as per admission brochure, is as under: “Should be a pass in 10+2 examination from recognized Board/University with Physics and L.P.A.No. 513 of 2009 [2] Mathematics as compulsory subjects alongwith one of the following subjects:- (a) Chemistry (b) Bio-Technology © Computer Science (d) Biology” 4. Learned Single Judge held that in terms of the above requirement, passing of individual subject of Physics was a condition of eligibility. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that requirement is of passing 10+2 Examination in which Physics should be one of the subjects and there is no requirement that individual Physics subject should be passed. 7. Learned counsel for the University relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Doraha Institute of Management and Trechnology vs. State of Punjab through Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab 2003(1) RSJ 54, wherein identical provision was examined and it was held that mere passing of 10+2 Examination was not enough unless the compulsory subject was also passed. In Para 10 it was observed: “ The contention as raised by the counsel cannot be accepted. In our view the Council could not have intended that a candidate who has studied mathematics at the 10+2 level shall be eligible for admission even if L.P.A.No. 513 of 2009 [3] he had failed in the subject and secured a 'Zero'. The obvious intention of the relevant portion of paragraph 4.0 is that the concerned candidate should have a Bachelor's degree with mathematics at the 10+2 level. In other words, the intention is that he should have qualified the 10+2 examination with mathematics as one of the subjects. This is precisely what the State Government4 has laid down as a condition of eligibility in paragraph 'A' . We do not find any repugnance.” 8. As per Annexure P-1, which is the result of the examination held in 2006, the appellant is declared as having been failed in Physics (Theory). Similarly in Annexure P-2, the appellant is shown to have failed in Physics (Theory). 9. We have also been informed by counsel for the University that appellant has also failed in Physics in the examination for B.Tech in which she was allowed to appear as per interim order dated June 10, 2009. 10. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 24, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No L.P.A.No. 513 of 2009 [4]