REENA CHAUHAN Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment will dispose of all the six civil writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. Nos. 9532, 10667, 20607, 13699 of 2009, 4596 and 8896 of 2010.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Petitioners appeared for CET-B. Ed. Entrance Examination in 2007 and got admissions on 16.10.2007 after the cut off date for admission which was 13.10.2007. It is their case that they were granted the regular admission and they attended the course. The college sent their names when the examination was to be conducted and the University issued Roll Numbers and permitted them to appear in the examination. But now the result is not being declared on the ground that they had obtained admission on 16.10.2007 i.e. three days after the cut off date. The further grievance of the Petitioners is that even those students who were granted admission on 13.10.2007 were permitted three days joining time and, therefore, it was hardly of any consequence if they got admission on 16.10.2007. It is further their grievance that the Respondents cannot decline to declare the result of the Petitioners because of the reason that the University itself issued the Roll Numbers and for no fault of the Petitioners they are being victimised.

(3.) The stand of the Respondent-University is that there was no provision under which the college could grant admission after the cut off date and that some colleges which were desirous of admitting the students after the cut off date have filed writ petitions before this Court in which interim directions were given permitting the colleges to admit the students. The writ petitions were eventually dismissed and Special Leave Petitions were preferred against the same. The Supreme Court permitted them to take the admission provisionally without conferring an equitable right in favour of the Petitioners. Finally, the Special Leave to Appeal was also dismissed and the admission and result of those students who filed the SLPs and the students who were similarly situated as the Petitioners was cancelled. It was thus pleaded that the result of the Petitioners cannot be declared and their admission has to be cancelled. It was further pleaded by the University that the Petitioners who were merely permitted to take the admission on the principle of parity as the Supreme Court had granted the permission provisionally to the students whose ease was being espoused by the institutions and they in order to avoid further litigation extended the benefit to even those students who were not before the Courts.