Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2194 (PNJ)

Pratibha v. Kurukshetra University

2009-12-17

PERMOD KOHLI

body2009
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-12). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners admission to LLB (Professional) - 3 year degree course for the academic session 2008-09 has been cancelled vide communication dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-12). The petitioner was admitted to this course in the capacity as a government employee pursuant to selection in the entrance examination held in the year 2008-09. Respondent - University notified the admission only to the regular employees of the Government, Semi-Government, Autonomous Organisations, Recognised Educational Institutions whose place of employment is within 70 kms. from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and minimum 2 years of regular service. On her selection the petitioner deposited the requisite fee/admitted to the course and allotted Roll No. 226. She was allocated Section D. The petitioner started attending classes from 14.08.2008. 3. In accordance with the stipulation in the prospectus the selected employee was required to furnish an `Employment Certificate in the prescribed format. The petitioner applied for Employment Certificate vide her application dated 12.08.2008 Respondent No. 3 - District & Sessions Judge, Ambala in whose office petitioner is serving, sought, a clarification from the petitioner vide Memo No. 4317 dt. 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-4) regarding timing of classes and also whether the petitioner would be able to reach and attend the class at Kurukshetra University after she is free from the office at Ambala at 5.00 pm. In response to the aforesaid communication, the petitioner vide her letter dated 19.08.2008 (Annexure P-5), communicated to respondent No. 3 that the time for evening classes is from 5.20 p.m. to 9.05 p.m. First two periods are of the same subject on each day. The petitioner also mentioned that the distance from Ambala to Kurukshetra is about 50 kms. It was also mentioned that the University had been accommodating in the past and will accommodate this year also to office goers by not attending the first period. The petitioner also mentioned that if the petitioner failed to attend the classes, she would automatically be disqualified. 4. On this petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 26.08.2008 asking her to produce the latest and proper employment certificate from the employer within three days and also to show cause why provisional admission granted to the petitioner be not cancelled. 4. On this petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 26.08.2008 asking her to produce the latest and proper employment certificate from the employer within three days and also to show cause why provisional admission granted to the petitioner be not cancelled. In the meantime, respondent No. 3 issued an employment certificate dated 26.08.2008 in the prescribed format with an additional note appended thereto wherein a reference is made to the communication of the petitioner dated 19.08.2008 wherein petitioner had stated that the University accommodates the office goers for not attending the first period. The petitioner produced the certificate to the respondent-University. It appears that the respondent-University was not satisfied with the note appended to the certificate and resultantly the University vide its letter dated 28.08.2008 informing the respondent No. 3 that the Department cannot make any compromise/commitment nor does it accommodate any student from attending the classes. It was also stipulated that every student is required to attend at least 66% lectures as per rules of the Bar Council of India and the petitioner has not given true picture. A copy of this communication is also separately endorsed to the petitioner. After receiving the aforesaid communication, petitioner made a representation dated 01.09.2008 to the respondent No. 3 explaining that her intention was not to mislead. She also explained that no compromise was extended by University and ask for an unconditional employment certificate. In the meantime, the University notified the date of examination and ask the student to fill up the form by 09.09.2008. The petitioner obtained the requisite examination form however, her examination form was not accepted by the University. The petitioner again approached the respondent No. 3 for issuance of a fresh unconditional employment certificate. While the issue was pending with the respondent No. 3 respondent No. 2 - University by its communication dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure P-12) cancelled the admission of the petitioner to the LLB - 3 year degree course on the ground of non-submission of unconditional employment certificate. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and notification dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure P-5 & P-7), petitioner filed this petition challenging the same. 5. This Court vide interlocutory order dated 16.10.2008 while granting time to the respondent to file reply, petitioner was permitted to attend the classes after the office hours subject to the decision of this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. This Court vide interlocutory order dated 16.10.2008 while granting time to the respondent to file reply, petitioner was permitted to attend the classes after the office hours subject to the decision of this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 3 in his reply has referred to the communication of the petitioner dated 19.08.2008 wherein she had mentioned that the University had accommodated the office goers in the east. It is also the case of the respondent No. 3 that clarification has been made by the University that no such indulgence is shown and a student has to attend 66% lectures. It is however, mentioned that the employment certificate earlier granted to the petitioner on 26.08.2008 was never withdrawn by the respondent No. 3 nor even ask the University to take any action. Even the University in its reply has simply stated that the submission of the employment certificate in prescribed proforma is mandatory and the petitioners admission to the course was only subject to furnishing of the employment certificate in accordance with the stipulation contained in the prospectus. 7. The only issue requiring consideration is whether the petitioner has violated any of the stipulation/condition of admission. The employment certificate dated. 26.08.2008 submitted by the petitioner is in the prescribed proforma. It is only on account of a note appended to the certificate which has led to the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner. As a matter of fact the main certificate issued by the respondent No. 3 conforms to the proforma. The University however, gave importance to the note and not the employment certificate and even without giving any proper opportunity to the petitioner, her admission has been cancelled. Once the petitioner had submitted the employment certificate which conforms to the prescribed norms, any note which only communicates some alleged misrepresentation has absolutely no meaning. The University norms prescribe for minimum attendance in the course. Whatever the petitioner might have communicated to the respondent No. 3 the same cannot be made the basis of cancellation of the admission and be held responsible for any violation of the condition of admission or the Universitys rules and regulations. The University norms prescribe for minimum attendance in the course. Whatever the petitioner might have communicated to the respondent No. 3 the same cannot be made the basis of cancellation of the admission and be held responsible for any violation of the condition of admission or the Universitys rules and regulations. Merely because the petitioner had communicated that the University had accommodated the students does not itself justify the cancellation of admission so long the petitioner is obliged to attend the classes and achieve the minimum prescribed attendance. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the petitioner has not achieved the prescribed attendance. 8. The petitioner has been permitted to pursue the course. The petitioner has already achieved more than required attendance of the course. The impugned order Annexure P-12 is not justifiable and it is thus, not sustainable in law. 9. For the above said reasons, this petition succeeds. The impugned order for cancellation of admission is hereby quashed. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to complete the course in accordance with the rules.