(1.) THE petitioner had applied for appearance in the Entrance Examination to be held by the respondent on 14th November for admission to the Post Graduate courses. THE respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of the petitioner though having filed an undertaking as required to be filled of being not an accused in any offence having also intimated to the respondent that she had been charged with the offence of impersonation in the Medical Entrance Examination. Aggrieved therefrom, this Writ Petition was filed. This Court vide order dated 9 th November, 2010 while issuing notice of the writ petition permitted the petitioner to appear in the Entrance Examination, the result whereof was however directed to be withheld till further orders.
(2.) THE counsels today inform that the result of the petitioner though has not been declared but her name finds mention in the list of candidates called for counselling scheduled for 10th and 16th December, 2010.
(3.) THE guilt of the petitioner is still to be adjudicated upon. THEre does not seem to be any reason to prevent the petitioner from pursuing further education particularly when there is no rule of the respondent prohibiting so. Though the respondent had desired an undertaking aforesaid from the applicants but it is informed that there is no rule prohibiting accused persons from gaining admission or pursuing the Post Graduate course. When the accused persons are permitted to even contest elections, there seems to be no reason to prevent them from pursuing higher education. A convict even has a right to pursue further studies provided the same do not interfere with the punishment. THE approach of modern penologists is rehabilitative rather than retributive. In the present case there is nothing to suggest that the charge against the petitioner will interfere with the studies which she intends to pursue. Moreover, if the petitioner is so prevented and is ultimately acquitted, the denial of further education cannot be compensated in any way.