KANTI CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 05.10.2012 rejecting the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant (for short "the appellant").

(2.) The challenge in the writ petition was to the impugned notice dated 01.08.2012 (P-3) issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani the 5th respondent addressed to the appellant allotting a Government school for teaching practice of 20 days during the 4th semester and an Internship of 180 working days after commencement of the 4th semester examination for the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) programme. Aggrieved by the Internship of 180 days added on to the D.Ed. programme, the writ petition was brought complaining that the prospectus issued for the Session 2010-12 did not contain provision for Internship and all that was required to be done was to successfully complete the two year programme leading to the grant of D.Ed. The Internship was introduced without prior notice and, therefore, was not a part of the curriculum and the appellant could not be forced after completion of the 4th semester to be put to an Internship as a condition precedent for qualifying the D.Ed. programme. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned condition.

(3.) It is not disputed that for the academic session 2012-14 the requirement of Internship of 180 days stands mentioned in the prospectus. The sanctity of the conditions laid down in a prospectus in their manifold facets have been considered in the following Full Bench decisions of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, 1993 4 SLR 673; Raj Singh v. Maharishi Dayanand University, 1994 4 RSJ 289; Sachin Gaur v. Panjabi University, Patiala,1996 1 RSJ 1; Anil Jain v. Controller of Exams, MDU,1997 3 RSJ 88 and Indu Gupta v. Director of Sports, Punjab,1999 4 RSJ 667.