PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH Vs. ASHWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment we propose to decide two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1217 and 1218 of 1988, filed by the Punjab University, inasmuch as learned single Judge, against whose judgment these two Letters Patent Appeals have arisen, had decided two Writ Petitions Nos. 8065 of 1988 and 8362 of 19s8 by the same judgment.

(2.) ASHWINDER Kaur and Ritu Chandha, writ-petitioners, in the above-said two writ petitions, had challenged the criteria for admission to the course of Master of Library and Information Science (in short M. Lib.) in the Punjab University for the session 1988-89. The challenge to the criteria for admission to the said course was: (i) The department had introduced qualifications higher than the minimum prescribed in the University Calendar for admission to the course, thereby excluded the petitioners to seek admission; (ii) That giving weightage of 5% marks to the dependent sons/daughters of the Punjab University employees in service or retired, was arbitrary and discriminatory; and (iii) That the formula laid down by the authorities for normalisation of marks obtained in the minimum qualifying examination as well as in the higher qualification was also arbitrary. The learned single Judge accepted all the above three points raised on behalf of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the University has come up in appeals.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that when the writ petitions were admitted, the University was directed to admit the petitioners provisionally to the M. Lib. Course. The writ petitioners have completed their course and have passed the said examination. At the outset we put it to the University counsel that the decision in the appeals would be just academic, inasmuch as the writ petitioners have already passed the M. Lib. course. Mr. N. K. Sodhi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant-university, submitted that the University was keen to get a decision in the matter for their future guidance as to whether they could lay down the criteria which has been struck down by the learned single Judge. He also undertook that even in case these Letters Patent Appeals were to be allowed the benefit of the judgment of the learned single Judge to the petitioners would not be withdrawn and their result in the M. Lib, examination would stand. Accordingly, we proceeded to hear the counsel for the respective parties.