SAROJ DEVI Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Saroj Devi has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and has prayed that the reply given by respondent No. 2 to the legal notice dated 5.2.1999 be quashed and the respondents be directed to declare her result of Shastri Final Examination of additional subjects i.e. English and Hindi which was given by Kuruk -shetra University under Roll No. 2087 held in April, 1998.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that she passed Shastri 1st year in Sanskrit in April, 1992 by securing 253 marks out of 600 and thereafter she cleared Sanskrit (Shastri) Part -II in April, 1994 by securing 291 marks out of 600. She also cleared her Sanskrit (Shastri) Part -Ill in April, 1995 by securing 751 marks out of 1600. Then she tried to take admission in M.A. with Kurukshetra University, but as per the rules and eligibility condition she had to clear the Hindi and English subjects in Shastri Part -Ill in Sanskrit. Resultantly she applied for taking examination of English and Hindi as additional subjects. She filled the form which was received by the University along with requisite fee. She was issued Roll No. slip by the Controller of Examination. Date -sheet was also supplied to her. She appeared in the examination of additional subjects i.e. English and Hindi on 4.4.1998 and 10.4.1998 respectively, but the result has not been declared by the respondents and the same has been withheld illegally. She sent a legal notice, to which reply was given by the respondents that inadvertently the roll number was issued to the petitioner, but she was not eligible to appear in the additional papers keeping in view the fact that she had passed the Shastri part -III under the old scheme where there is no provision for appearing in the additional papers. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice and it is not tenable in the eyes of law. With this background the petitioner has made a prayer that the stand of the respondents be rejected and directions be given to them to declare her result.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.