NEETU KAD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I dispose of three writ petitions - No. 7975 of 2000 (Neetu Kad and others v. State of Punjab and others), 7900 of 2000 (Jasmandeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) and 7976 of 2000 (Dupinder Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and others), as common question of law and fact is involved in these writ petitions. For the sake of facts, I have taken the same from Civil Writ Petition No. 7975 of 2000. It may also be mentioned here that the fate of two writ petitions No. 7900 of 7976 of 2000 will be different in view of the lack of evidence with regard to basic requisite qualifications. Though all the three writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, Baba Farid University, Faridkot to allow them to appear in the B.D.S. 2nd Year Examination which was to be held w.e.f 20.6.2000 and also to declare their result.

(2.) It may also be mentioned here that under the orders of this Court the petitioners did appear in the examination but their result has been withheld.

(3.) The common premises built by the petitioners are that they undertook their 1st Year Examination of B.D.S. Course in May, 1999. They were the students of respondent No. 3 College which was affiliated to Punjabi University Patiala. They appeared in the examination but all had compartments. They again appeared in the compartment examination in September, 1999 but failed to clear the same. Till this date their examinations were conducted by the Punjabi University, Patiala. It is at that stage that Baba Farid University, respondent No. 2, took over conducting the dental courses in the State of Punjab. Despite the compartment, all the petitioners were permitted to appear in B.D.S. 2nd Professional Course on provisional basis subject to clearing the compartments. Baba Farid University, respondent No. 2, in order to save one academic year of all the candidates, who could not clear that compartment in September, 1999, sent a letter dated 4.11.1999 to the Principals of all the Colleges under the Faculty of Dental Science and vide this letter details were asked about the various candidates who had failed to clear the compartment examination. As a result of this letter another examination was held for the compartmental candidates of the Ist Year B.D.S. Course all over the University. All the petitioners despite failing in the compartmental examination in September, 1999, continued their studies in 2nd Year B.D.S. Course. By the passing of this examination, all the petitioners were eligible to take the 2nd Year B.D.S. Examination, as provided by Clause 12(b) of the Prospectus Annexure P1. The examination was to be held from 20.6.2000 onwards and was to be completed on 5.7.2000. The petitioners were shocked when they were not allotted roll numbers to appear in the 2nd Year B.D.S. Examination. The College of the petitioners told them for the first time that they would not be allotted roll numbers because instructions in this regard have been received by the College from the University. The petitioners then approached the University as also the College authorities and tried to show that they were eligible for the examination. The case set up by the petitioners is that they had passed the Ist Year Examination in the special test taken by the University in pursuance of the decision dated 4.11.1999 and the intention of the letter was to save one academic year of the students and now it is too late for the University to say that the petitioners are not eligible to appear in the 2nd Year B.D.S. Course. The action on the part of the University is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the provisions of the Prospectus. This is the broad case set up by the petitioners.