PUNJAB UNIVERSITYCHANDIGARH Vs. KANWAR CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Punjab University through its Registrar has filed the present appeal under clause x of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 3rd Aug., 1981, by which Civil Writ Petn. No. 1472 of 1982 filed by Kanwar Chaudhry, writ petitioner, (now respondent) was allowed with a further direction to the appellant to declare his result.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy raised before us, certain salient features of the case may be noticed :- The respondent appeared in the Bachelor of Arts, Part III Examination in April, 1980, the result of which was declared in July, 1980. He got compartment in the subject of Political Science. As provided for under the rules the respondent could appear in the subject of Political Science at the next two examinations, that is, in September, 1980 and in April, 1981, in order to enable him to clear the Political Science Paper. The respondent availed of the first chance in September, 1980, but failed as he secured only 30 marks whereas the minimum marks required to pass the paper were 35. Not being satisfied with the result of the examination, the respondent applied for revaluation of his paper. The result of the revaluation, he sent a completed admission form along with a postal order for Rs. 40/- as the examination fee and Rs. 105/- as late fee of the Registrar, Punjab University, for appearing in the examination to be held in April, 1981, vide registered letter dated 23rd March, 1981; but the Registrar refused to entertain the application of the respondent and sent a communication in this respect to the respondent vide a letter dated 2nd April, 1981, copy of Annexure P. 3 to the petition. Dissatisfied from the reply, the respondent made a representation, but the same rejected by the Registrar vide letter dated 8th April, 1981, copy Annexure P. 5 to the petition. As the respondent was refused permission to sit in the examination, he filed Civil Writ Petn. No. 1472 of 1981 in this Court. At the time of the hearing of the petition, the point that was raised on behalf of the respondent by has counsel was that for the purpose of Rule 1, Part (D), Chap. XXII, of the Punjab University Calendar Vol. III, 1981, which reads as under :-

(3.) Before us, Mr. H. S. Bedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contested the aforesaid finding, inter alia, on the ground that entirely a new case has been made out by the learned single Judge, for the respondent inasmuch as in the petition no plea has been taken take the admission form was submitted within time by the respondent and that it is the date of the publication of the result of the publication of the result of the revaluation which shall have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of R. 1. In the alternative, it is submitted by the learned counsel that in the instruction issued for the purpose of getting the revaluation made, it has been clearly specified that the candidate should plain his/her future programme according to the result already communicated by the University and in the wake of those instructions, the respondent could not legally claim that the date on which his revaluation result was declared should be the date for filing the admission form under R. 1.