Varun Kaushal v. Kurukshetra University & Anr.

have been raised. It is pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had concealed true and material facts. It is then disclosed that the petitioner was allowed admission in LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) as his writ petition was allowed on 22.11.2009. The petitioner was admitted during the 1st Semester on 10.12.2009. Despite that, the petitioner did not attend even a single lecture in LL.B. 1st Semester. The petitioner was not held eligible to take examination of LL.B. 1st Semester, which was held in December, 2009. Since, the petitioner was still eligible for being promoted to LL.B. 2nd Semester, he was, accordingly, so promoted. Reply would disclose that the petitioner did not even attend a single lecture of LL.B. 2nd Semester, for which the examinations were held in May, 2010 and this fact is admitted by the petitioner in his representation, copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-1/3. Perusal of Annexure P-1/3 would show that the petitioner is stated to have suffered from flue during the months of Civil Writ Petition No. 22248 of 2010 -4- January & February, 2010. He had, accordingly, pleaded in the representation that he was advised not to move in public to avoid spreading the infection. As per the petitioner, he could not so commence attending classes of 2nd Semester. The petitioner has made a reference to old age of his parents and the ailments that they were suffering to claim that he had remained busy in attending to his parents and thus, could not attend lectures during the 2nd Semester. By pleading that the absence to attend the lectures in 1st and 2nd Semester, was beyond his control, the petitioner had prayed for grant of permission to join 3rd Semester and thus, to continue his study of the LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course. The petitioner had even undertaken to take first and the second semester examination by completing the requisite number of lectures as per the University/Bar Council Rules, in due course prior to his completing LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course. The counsel has made grievance about the fact that the petitioner had been taken as a casual student and that no such category of student was defined in the Ordinance. Grievance is further made in regard to the issuance of roll number and various other such issues, which have got no relevance with the prayer made in the petition. The counsel was told to confine his submission to the relevant facts necessary to decide the case, but he continues to plead the case in his own manner. The difficulty with the counsel can be appreciated as he is pleading the cases of Civil Writ Petition No. 22248 of 2010 -5- his own son. That is why it is always considered admissible not to appear as a counsel in those cases where personal interest is at stake. The counsel was even given suggestion to take assistance of his colleagues or a counsel detailed by the Court, but he declined the same. The University otherwise has explained the reasons for which the petitioner was permitted to take casual admission as an ex student. Reference in this regard is made to Annexure-R/1. Concededly, the petitioner after grant of admission had never come to attend any class and attempt on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to dispute this factual position would rebounce on him in the form of Annexure-P-3/1, where the petitioner himself has conceded the entire factual position. The petitioner has not made any grievance about he having not been permitted to appear in the 1st Semester examination, which was held in December, 2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to 2nd Semester. Despite that the petitioner has not attended even a single a lecture of 2nd Semester. The representation to the Vice-Chancellor would reveal so. If the petitioner had been attending the classes, as was the case made during the course of arguments, there was no reason for him to file representation Annexure P-3/1. The problem of the petitioner is further compounded from the fact disclosed in the reply that he has even not filled up the examination form for appearing in the examination, which is Civil Writ Petition No. 22248 of 2010 -6- going to take place on 22.12.2010. Last date for depositing the examination form was 15.9.2010. The form could be deposited with late fee by 15.11.2010. The petitioner concededly has not filled up the examination form. The petitioner in this regard also made representation on 25.11.2010 to allow him to submit examination form, copy of which he has himself annexed with the petition as Annexure-P/5. His request was declined keeping in view that he had not attended requisite number of classes and thus, there was shortage of lectures. As per the reply, the petitioner had attended only 70 lecturers out of 384 upto 29.11.2010. In this background, his request for late submission of the examination form was not accepted. Counsel for the petitioner, however, pleads that being a casual student, he was not required to deposit any form. In this regard, counsel for the respondents refers to the representation Annexure P-5 filed by the petitioner. The heading of this reads ‘Grant of permission to deposit examination form/fee for the 1st semester examination 2010-11-casual student, Roll No.281’. The submission that the petitioner was not required to submit examination form, is contrary to the stand of the petitioner as projected in Annexure P-5. The net result is that the petitioner has neither fulfilled the requirement of attending lectures nor has submitted his examination form and it would be highly unjust in the facts and background of this case to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in examination. Counsel for the petitioner lastly made prayer on human Civil Writ Petition No. 22248 of 2010 -7- ground for sympathetic consideration of his case. The cause as would emerge from the pleadings in this case would be such that the grant of any sympathetic consideration would certainly be misplaced. The equity and compassion would come into play only in case there is requirement of imparting justice with some mercy due to reason that person is in difficulty because of reasons beyond his control. Counsel for the petitioner has not disclosed anything which shows that there was something beyond his control for which he could not attend the classes or otherwise could not submit the form, which appears to be a totally due to casual approach and attitude. The petitioner himself is responsible for his own fate for which no Court can help him in law or equity. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. December 21, 2010 monika I ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE