Jaswinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.1.2013 (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondent-University declining to issue Detail Marks Card (''D.M.C'' for short) of the petitioner on the ground that she was not eligible to appear in the examination. The brief facts of the case, which are hardly in dispute, are that the petitioner took admission in B.A. Part-I in July 2008. She appeared in the examination in April 2009 and passed except English subject in which she got the compartment. She was admitted in B.A. Part-II in July 2009. In the month of September 2009, petitioner appeared in the supplementary examination of English, but again failed. She appeared in the main examination of B.A. Part-II held in the month of April 2010 and passed in all the subjects. In the month of March 2010, she appeared in the examination of English paper of B.A. Part-I, but failed. In the month of July 2010, she was admitted in B.A. Part-III and appeared in the annual examination of B.A. Part-III in the month of April 2011. Respondent-University granted a golden chance to the students like the petitioner to clear the supplementary examination of English subject of B.A. Part-I. Accordingly, while appearing in the annual examination of B.A. Part-III in the month of April 2011, petitioner was also allowed to take her examination in English subject of B.A. Part-I thereby permitting her to avail the golden chance. Petitioner passed her examination in English subject of B.A. Part-I. However, she had compartment in English subject of B.A. Part-III but she cleared that examination also held in April 2012. Result of the petitioner of B.A. Part-I examination as well as B.A. Part-III examination was declared as Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively, however, D.M.C. of B.A. Part-III was withheld. Petitioner approached the respondent-University by way of legal notice dated 10.11.2012 (Annexure P-4), which was replied vide impugned communication dated 11.1.2013 (Annexure P-5) by the respondent-University alleging that since the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the B.A. Part-III, her result was cancelled. However, no reason was assigned about the alleged ineligibility of the petitioner.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition.

Notice of motion was issued on 25.1.2013, by passing the following order:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that roll number was issued and petitioner was allowed to take the examination, as well. However, when the petitioner has also passed the examination, which is clear from Annexure P-3, her Details Mark Sheet is not being issued on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the examination.

Notice of motion for 4.3.2013.

In compliance of the above-said order, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed their separate written statements, whereas no reply was filed by respondent No. 4. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondent-University was not disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to avail the golden chance for passing the left over English subject of B.A. Part-I, the impugned action of the respondent-University was arbitrary on the face of it. The only objection raised by the respondent-University was that the petitioner could not have appeared in two major examinations in the same calendar year. He next contended that petitioner, as a matter of fact, did not appear in two major examinations, simultaneously. Petitioner appeared in only one major examination of B.A. Part-III, whereas, she was rightly allowed to take her supplementary examination in English subject of B.A. Part-I. He also submits that not only the petitioner was rightly allowed to take her major examination of B.A. Part-III permitting her to take her supplementary examination of English subject of B.A. Part-I, allowing her to avail the golden chance, even the result of B.A. Part-I as well as that of B.A. Part-III of the petitioner had been declared at Annexures P-2 and P-3. In such a situation, it was wholly unwarranted on the part of respondent-University not to issue the D.M.C. to the petitioner for B.A. Part-III. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-University vehemently contended that since the petitioner filled up the examination form of B.A. Part-III as Annexure R-2/1 giving wrong information that she was not appearing in any other examination, her result of B.A. Part-III was liable to be cancelled. He further submits that in column No. 6 of the form, petitioner has put tick mark the word ''No'', whereas she should have put tick mark the word ''Yes'', because she was intending to appear in the left over examination of English subject of B.A. Part-I also. Learned counsel for respondent-University submits that petitioner was not entitled to appear in two major examinations in one calendar year. This was the reason that the result of the petitioner was RL-R which means "result later on due to non-confirmation of eligibility by the Registration Branch." He submits that let the petitioner approach the Registration Branch, get her eligibility confirmed and accordingly her result would be declared, if she is found to be eligible for the same. Respondent-College has supported the case of the petitioner pleading that the petitioner was entitled to be declared pass in B.A. Part-III, as well.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

Firstly, entitlement of the petitioner for availing the golden chance granted to all the students like the petitioner, is not in dispute. The respondent-College submitted the examination form to the respondent-University alongwith all the documents and after due scrutiny thereof, the respondent-University accepted the same to be in order. Roll number was issued to the petitioner. She was allowed to appear in the examination in April 2011 of B.A. Part-III. Still further, even the result of the petitioner for B.A. Part-III was declared. However, only at the time of issuance of D.M.C., the respondent-University tried to justify its action by issuing a non-speaking and cryptic communication, Annexure P-5, saying that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in B.A. Part-III examination. It is too late in the day on the part of respondent-University to say so. This action of the respondent-University cannot be sustained.

Secondly, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-University laid much stress on the examination form of the petitioner, which has been appended at Annexure R-2/1 alleging that in column No. 6 thereof, petitioner made a factually incorrect statement that she was not appearing in any other examination. However, in the next very line of column No. 6, it has been printed in the examination form itself that the students cannot appear in the two major examinations in one calendar year. It has further been clarified that the students can appear in the minor examination alongwith major examination, but in the case of clash of dates of examinations, the students himself/herself will be responsible. When this part of the examination form itself was put to the learned counsel for the respondent-University, he had no answer to this. In this view of the matter, the statement made by the petitioner in column No. 6 cannot be said to be incorrect because the same has been further qualified by the respondent-University itself in the printed form of the same examination form. In this view of the matter, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned communication issued by the respondent-University in the form of Annexure P-5 is unjust, unwarranted and unreasonable, hence cannot be sustained.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that once the result of the petitioner of B.A. Part-III was declared by the respondent-University, she was also entitled for the D.M.C. thereof.

Consequently, the impugned communication dated 11.1.2013 (Annexure P-5) which is non-speaking and cryptic on the face of it, is hereby ordered to be set aside. The respondent-University is directed to issue the D.M.C. to the petitioner without any further loss of time and in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order so as to enable the petitioner to seek admission in any of the higher class or course, whichever, she wants to pursue. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed, in the terms aforementioned, however, with no order as to costs.