Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1842 (PNJ)

Paul v. State Of Punjab

2007-10-12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing impugned order dated 8.5.2007, Annexure P.1, cancelling admission of the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she was admitted by respondent No.3 College against a left over seat which remained unfilled after the counselling on 27.9.2005. The petitioner completed classes of the academic year and appeared in the first year examination and passed the same. She attended 90% classes for the Second year and was eligible for taking the examination. Roll Number was not issued on the ground that her admission had been cancelled by the impugned order. 3. While issuing notice on 10.5.2007, the petitioner was allowed to provisionally appear for examination commencing 11.5.2007. 4. In the reply filed, the stand of the University is that the University representative was not associated with the admission which was mandatory under the notification dated 25.4.2005 and the University was required to be intimated atleast two weeks before the date of admission which was not done. The petitioner had not passed 10+1 and 10+2 from the State of Punjab, as required under Clause 4A of the notification dated 25.4.2005. Due publicity for filling up the seat was not given as per Clause 7.4A(f) of the said notification. In these circumstances, this Court dismissed CWP No. 9326 of 2006 (Lovnish Pandir v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and others,) on 7.12 2006 and cancellation of admission was justified. 5. In replication filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that father of the petitioner was employee of Punjab Civil Secretariat from 1976 to 1980. Her mother is a teacher in Government High School in District Patiala. 6. We have considered identical matter in CWP No. 6997 of 2007,2008(1) S.L.R. 439, (Inderpreet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others) and held that having regard to the fact that the petitioner already studied for two years, it will be inequitable to cancel her admission. The university inspite of opportunity being available did not take prompt action. For the same reasons, we allow this petition.