CWP No.9514 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 24.08.2009 Shekhar Sharma Vs. Punjab Engineering College,Chandigarh and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Amrit Surrolia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner has assailed the decision of the Senate of the respondent-College whereby the student who was earlier allegedly involved in the Unfair Means has been debarred from undertaking summer term. The relevant decision of the Senate was taken in its meeting held on 28.05.2009. The impugned decision reads as under:- “A student who had been caught using unfair means, and hence could not clear a course during the regular semester, will not be allowed to register for that course during the summer terms.” CWP No.9514 of 2009 : 2 : The petitioner has further prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus for his registration for the summer term for the Session 2009. On being put to notice, reply has been filed by respondent No.1 to 4 wherein the stand of the respondents is reiterated based upon the aforesaid decision. Apart from that, it has been revealed that the relevant answer sheet of the petitioner has been misplaced and is not available. It is further stated that an enquiry in this regard has been ordered by the Director. I want to place on record my displeasure on the attitude of respondent No.3 who despite a direction of the Court declined to file his affidavit. It was only when a Show Cause Notice was issued to him as to why Contempt Proceedings be not initiated against him. He responded to the order of the Court and filed his affidavit. It is admitted case of the parties summer terms is over. It was for the duration from 01.06.2009 to 20.07.2009. The petitioner, thus, cannot take the benefit of the summer term notwithstanding the question of validity of the decision of the Senate. Proceedings for Unfair Means were initiated against the petitioner in respect to the paper of Environmental Engineering. He has been declared fail and no other disqualification has been earned by him. The petitioner is also undergoing regular course of 8th semester in the subject of Environmental Engineering. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents are likely to take a bias decision on CWP No.9514 of 2009 : 3 : account of the filing of the present writ petition, and because of the action taken by the Court for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent No.3. It is also the concern of the petitioner that he will not be granted degree in the year 2009 even if he successfully qualifies the examination of the aforementioned course. Since the summer term is already over, the plea of the petitioner that he may be permitted to undertake course during summer terms cannot be acceded to at this stage. With a view to dispell apprehension of the petitioner and to provide him a fair opportunity to undertake the course who is in the final semester of the course, it is deemed appropriate that without casting any aspersion on any individual or authority, it is directed that such of the faculty members who were associated with the invigilation/evaluation in December, 2008 shall not be associated for teaching, invigilation and evaluation of the papers of petitioner in any manner. It is further directed that if the petitioner successfully qualifies the course in the year 2009, the respondent-University will issue degree to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay. Respondent No.3 was summoned for non-compliance of the Court order. Now he has filed his affidavit tendering unconditional apology. This Court has already recorded displeasure on the conduct of respondent No.3 in earlier paragraph of this order. Keeping in view the status of respondent No.3 and the fact that he has tendered unconditional apology coupled with the facts that respondent No.3, CWP No.9514 of 2009 : 4 : who is present in person, has assured the Court that such conduct shall not be repeated in future, his apology is accepted. Proceedings against respondent No.3 are dropped with a warning to him. With these observations, present writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. 24.08.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES