Gulafsha Parveen vs Panjab University

K. Kannan, J.

CM No. 11086 of 2014

Exemption granted. Annexure A/1 is taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

Civil Writ Petition No. 6181 of 2014

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the University to issue roll number to enable her to take B.A. 1st year examination. The petitioner had sought the examination as a private candidate and the refusal of the roll number was on account of the fact that the petitioner''s qualifying examination, namely, a pass in + 2 had not been obtained in an academic year prior to the date when the examinations were held. The petitioner''s grievance is that she had obtained her pass in +2 in October 2013 and, therefore, she must be taken to be a candidate who had passed in the previous academic year on 2012-13 and, therefore, she was fully eligible. The petitioner would refer to the eligibility for admission as declared in the prospectus that reads as under:-

"A. A candidate who has passed one of the following examinations with English as one of the subject shall be eligible to join the First Year Class of the B.A. General degree course:--

"i. B.A./B.Sc/B.Com Part I (Old Scheme), pre-Medical/Pre-Engg/Intermediate Arts/Science/Agriculture examination of the Panjab University.

ii. The +2 examination under 10+2+3 system of education of a recognized University/Board/Council.

iii. Any other examination recognized by the University as equivalent to (i) and (ii) above."

The contention is that although she had passed the examination in October 2013, it pertains to the academic year 2012- 13 and with no specific requirement of pass having been in the first examination in March-April, she had still completed +2 in 2013. That, according to her, would secure to her the necessary eligibility.

The defence of the University is that in terms of the University Calendar, the examination of the first, second and third years shall be open to a student who had passed not less than one academic year previously. The qualifying examination laid down under Regulation 4. I which refers to a person, who had passed the examination in English as one of the subjects i.e. 1st year class of BA must be passed in a period not less than one academic year prior to the latter exam. Consequently, the petitioner, who had a pass only in October, 2013, cannot be permitted to take the examination. At the previous hearing, I had asked the University whether there was any particular definition for one academic year as found in clause 7. The University has filed Annexure A1 which does not explain academic year but it sets out an academic session as commencing on the 10th of July and ending with April 30 every year. If a person were to enter BA and take the 1st year, say 2014 exam, it could only be of a person who was eligible to gain admission in academic session 2013-14, which would by 10th July 2013. Obviously, a reference to a person who must have passed not less than one academic year must be understood as an year which pertains to the normal examination of the previous academic year. For a candidate who seeks for examination in the first year in BA in 2014, it should, therefore, be a pass in the qualifying examination, namely, in +2 in the previous academic year. The previous academic year in + 2 of 2012-13 must refer to examination pertaining to the year 2012-13. If the examination was held in March or April but the petitioner did not take the exam but availed of the succeeding opportunity available for "reappear", namely, in August or September and obtained results only in October, then he cannot be taken to have completed +2 examination, namely, the qualifying examination in the previous academic year. When the academic session for 2013-14 commenced in July 2013, the petitioner had not even passed +2 examination. If she has taken the examination in the second session which is made available for a candidate who did not take the first session of examination that were concluded in March or April, it should only mean that the pass had not been in qualifying examination that was not less than one academic year. The impermissibility could be tested in another way as well. With a pass in October 2013, she could not have secured admission in any regular course in B.A. for 2013-14. The session would have started already in July 2013. If a person would not have been eligible in a regular B.A. course in July 2013, she cannot be eligible as a private candidate. The rejection of the candidature by the University was justified and the writ petition is dismissed.