Hardeep Kaur v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & Anr.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mr.Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate for respondent No.1. Dr. M.L.Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.2. ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Mukul Mudgal, CJ(Oral):

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant praying for quashing the letter dated 19.03.2009 whereby the appellant was denied the issuance of roll number for the Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA)Part III examination. The appellant got admission in BCA Ist year LPA No. 302 of 2010(O&M) 2 examination in July, 2006 in April, 2007. In the examination in the first year she got compartment in two papers. She was provisionally admitted in BCA IInd year in July, 2007. In the first supplementary examination held in September, 2007 she cleared one compartment paper. In April, 2008 she appeared in the second year examination and got compartment in one paper. She could not clear her first year compartment paper. In July, 2008 the appellant was admitted to the BCA Part III. However, she cleared the first year compartment in September, 2008. It was after this that the impugned letter dated 19.03.2009 was issued denying roll number to the appellant in the BCA IIIrd year which resulted in the filing of Civil Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2009, out of which the present LPA has arisen.

The main issue which arises in the present appeal relates to the compartment examination of the respondent university. The relevant Ordinances read as follows:- “11. A candidate, who having attended the prescribed number of lectures, does not appear in the examination or having appeared has failed or has been placed under compartment may be allowed to appear as an ex-student on the recommendation of the Principal concerned. In such case, the candidate shall be examined as per the course outlines in force at that time for that examination.

12. Each candidate shall be required to obtained at least 35% marks in each paper/practical separately.

13. A candidate, who obtains 40% of the aggregate marks in the prescribed subjects but has failed in two subjects by obtaining not less than 20% of the marks in LPA No. 302 of 2010(O&M) 3 those subjects, shall be permitted to appear in those subjects only at the next two consecutive examinations, and if he passes at either of those examinations, he shall be deemed to have passed the examination. Note: These amendments will take effect from the session 2001-2002.

14. A candidate who is placed in compartment under ordinance 13 above may join provisionally by the next higher class,m if he is otherwise eligible under the ordinances relating to the concerned examination. If he fails to qualify in the compartment subject at the supplementary examination, he shall be eligible to appear again at the next annual examination in that subject along with the examination of the next higher class, which he has provisionally joined. If he fails to qualify even at the annual examination, his candidature for the higher class shall stand automatically cancelled and his result shall not be declared and if it has been declared, it shall stand annulled. Thereafter, he shall have to appear in all subjects as a regular or private candidate if he is otherwise eligible relevant Statutes/Ordinances. However, to clear the compartment paper one extra chance shall be granted to those candidates who could not clear it after availing the two admissible chances, but had appeared and passed the next higher LPA No. 302 of 2010(O&M) 4 examination simultaneously of this University. (*) Amended vide GNDU Syndicate para No. 21(XIII) dated

27.9.2001.”

The learned Single Judge analysed the above Ordinances and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahatma Gandhi University and another v. Gis Jose & Ors. 2009(1) RSJ 438 held that the admission of the appellant to BCA III was in contravention of Ordinance 14 extracted above. On perusal of Ordinance 14 it is evident that in the main part of the Ordinance two supplementary attempts are permitted to a student who has secured the minimum of 20% marks and fulfils the attendance criteria. Up to this stage the student is also permitted to be provisionally admitted to the next class. The two supplementary attempts were taken by the appellant in September, 2007 and April, 2008. The appellant could not pass in one of the papers. It is clear that in failing to avail the opportunity to pass the examination in two supplementary attempts as per Ordnance 14, the candidature to the higher class stands automatically cancelled. It is also clearly stipulated that in such a situation the candidate will have to appear in all subjects as a regular candidate if otherwise eligible. However, there is a proviso to the above Ordinance which permits another supplementary chance to those students who could not clear the relevant paper after availing two supplementary chances. This chance is available to those students who had appeared and passed the next higher examination simultaneously. In the present case the appellant falls within the said proviso which, however, does not permit admission to the next higher class. In our view this proviso gives an extra opportunity to the appellant to appear in the relevant paper but does not enable her to seek and LPA No. 302 of 2010(O&M) 5 continue admission and studies in the next higher class.

Accordingly no fault can be found with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, the appellant would be at liberty to seek admission in the BCA IIIrd year. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE June 29, 2010 sunita