MARJINA Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus for issuing roll number to the petitioner and to permit her to appear in B.Ed examination, which was to commence on 07.04.2012. Having passed her Bachelor of Arts (B.A. General) examination in Session 2007-10 from the Global Open University, Nagaland. The petitioner got admission at Bhai Gurdas Distant Education Centre, Mansa in B.Ed. Course, which is affiliated with the respondent-Panjab University. The petitioner has placed on record the certificate showing her having passed B.A. course. The petitioner had applied for admission by making application online. Counselling was, accordingly, held. The petitioner deposited requisite fee and thereafter had started attending classes. In the month of February, 2012, respondent college sent the examination form of the petitioner to respondent/University. In response, a letter dated 29.03.2012 was received from the University showing that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to B.Ed classes. The objection, as raised, was that the petitioner had appeared in B.A. Part II examination alongwith B.A. Part I in the same year. On learning about this reason and ineligibility for the petitioner to get admission in B.Ed. Course, the petitioner sought clarification from the University, from where she had passed B.A. Examination. In response, she received communication, Annexure P-8, which would show that the candidate could appeal in two examinations in the same year as per the norms followed by the said University. This communication was shown to the respondent-University with a request to issue roll number. When roll number was not issued, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) While issuing notice of motion, this Court permitted her to sit in the examination but subject to final result of the writ petition. The Court specifically directed that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared till further orders of this Court.

(3.) Reply on behalf of University has been filed. No reply has been filed either by the institution or by the Global University, which was directed to be impleaded suo motu under the directions of this Court. In my view, there would not be any need to seek response either from the college and the said respondent/University. It is respondent No. 1/University, which has to examine the eligibility of the petitioner to seek admission in B.Ed. course as per the norms followed by the University. Any other norms followed by the Global University or the respondent/College would be immaterial.