Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1564 (PNJ)

Marjina v. Panjab University

2012-11-02

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.:- The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus for issuing roll number to the petitioner and to permit her to appear in B.Ed examination, which was to commence on 07.04.2012. 2. Having passed her Bachelor of Arts (B.A. General) examination in Session 2007-10 from the Global Open University, Nagaland. The petitioner got admission at Bhai Gurdas Distant Education Centre, Mansa in B.Ed. Course, which is affiliated with the respondent-Panjab University. The petitioner has placed on record the certificate showing her having passed B.A. course. The petitioner had applied for admission by making application online. Counselling was, accordingly, held. The petitioner deposited requisite fee and thereafter had started attending classes. In the month of February, 2012, respondent-college sent the examination form of the petitioner to respondent/University. In response, a letter dated 29.03.2012 was received from the University showing that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to B. Ed classes. The objection, as raised, was that the petitioner had appeared in B.A. Part II examination alongwith B.A. Part 1 in the same year. On learning about this reason and ineligibility for the petitioner to get admission in B.Ed. Course, the petitioner sought clarification from the University, from where she had passed B.A. Examination. In response, she received communication, Annexure P-8, which would show that the candidate could appear in two examinations in the same year as per the norms followed by the said University. This communication was shown to the respondent- University with a request to issue roll number. When roll number was not issued, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition. 3. While issuing notice of motion, this Court permitted her to sit in the examination but subject to final result of the writ petition. The Court specifically directed that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared till further orders of this Court. 4. Reply on behalf of University has been filed. No reply has been filed either by the institution or by the Global University, which was directed to be impleaded suo motu under the directions of this Court. In my view, there would not be any need to seek response either from the college and the said respondent/University. It is respondent No. 1/University, which has to examine the eligibility of the petitioner to seek admission in B.Ed. course as per the norms followed by the University. In my view, there would not be any need to seek response either from the college and the said respondent/University. It is respondent No. 1/University, which has to examine the eligibility of the petitioner to seek admission in B.Ed. course as per the norms followed by the University. Any other norms followed by the Global University or the respondent/College would be immaterial. 5. In the reply filed, respondent No. 1/University has pointed out that the petitioner was shown as having failed in the examination held in the year 2008. In the year 2009, she appeared in examination for two classes i.e. B.A. Part I and Part II and on that basis of degree so obtained, the petitioner had got admission in B.Ed. course with respondent/college. When the University checked the registration and the original documents, it found that the petitioner was not eligible to take admission in B.Ed course. The regulations of the answering respondent/University did not permit any candidate to appear in two examinations of B.A Pat I and Part II simultaneously. Accordingly, directions were issued to strike off the name of the petitioner from the rolls. Regulation 7 of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences B.A/B.Sc. (General and Honours) Examinations in the Panjab University Calender, Vol. II, 2007 at page 43 reads as under:- “7. The examination in First/Second/Third Year shall be open to a student who — (a) has passed not less than one academic year previously the qualifying examination laid down in Regulation 4.1. B.A./B.Sc. Course, the period of one academic year shall be counted from the examination in which the candidate is placed under compartment. A candidate who is placed in compartment/fail in the subject in +2 examination may be allowed to join B.A./B.Sc. 1st year class subject to the following conditions:- The admission of a candidate under Regulation 4.2 shall be provisional and shall be confirmed only after he has cleared the subject to compartment from the Parent Board/Body/Council/University in the two consecutive chances subsequent to his admission. In case he does not clear the compartment at two consecutive chances afforded to him his provisional admission to the Ist Year of the B.A./B.Sc. shall stand cancelled. In case he does not clear the compartment at two consecutive chances afforded to him his provisional admission to the Ist Year of the B.A./B.Sc. shall stand cancelled. If the candidates placed under compartment in +2 cleared their compartment examination by appearing in the Supplementary Examination of the Board before the last date of admission, they shall be considered fro admission to the next higher class provided they were eligible and subject to availability of seats.” 6. Accordingly, it is observed that the petitioner is not eligible to take admission to B.Ed course. Some exceptions to this rule have also been referred to, which is available in terms of Regulation 27 (1) and 27 (2), whereby the candidate having compartment in one subject can appear in two examinations simultaneously. This exception is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as she had completely failed in B.A. Part 1 examination. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Annexure P-8, which is communication initiated by the Global University, Nagaland issuing clarification about the eligibility criteria to B.Ed. Course. The perusal of this communication would reveal that the clarification has been issued on the basis of information made available to the University by the petitioner. It is stated that this practice is as per the University norms and is being followed by many Universities in the country to save student’s time and money. That may be so as far as the rules of Global University, Nagaland is concerned but the admission of the petitioner in B. Ed course is to be regulated by the regulations of the respondent/Panjab University and these regulations have to govern the field. Respondent No. 1/University is autonomous body and has its own rules and regulations. It cannot be bound by the regulations of the other University. If the petitioner had sought admission in B.Ed course in the Global University, Nagaland perhaps she may have a valid cause to espouse. Once she is seeking admission in the course conducted under the Punjab University, the regulations which are applicable to the Panjab University has to apply and cannot be ignored. As per the regulations, the petitioner is not eligible to seek admission in B.Ed course. Accordingly, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.