MANMOHAN KAUR Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order dated October 29, 1991 passed by respondent No. 2 informing her that her Examination form for taking B.Ed. Examination to be held in October, 1991 could not be accepted since she was ineligible for appearing in the examination, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The facts :

(2.) The petitioner appeared in B.Ed. Examination held by the Punjabi University in April/May, 1989, that the result was declared and, she got reappear in Paper II; that the petitioner appeared in paper-II in March, 1990 and till then she had not received her detailed marks cards for the examination held in April, 1989; that she submitted her examination form for the next examination on the basis of the Gazette Notification; that the result of her re-appear paper was not declared by the University on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the migration certificate from Guru Nanak Dev University though she had submitted the same with the examination form for the examination held in April/May, 1989; that the petitioner could not succeed in the re-appear paper; that she could re-appear in paper-II twice in accordance with the University Calendar; that she could appear in the examination to be held in October, 1991, but her examination form was rejected and that the next examination is going to be held in April, 1992.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion, counsel appeared on behalf of the University and stated that the petitioner had not submitted the migration certificate from the Guru Nanak Dev University and consequently her result of re-appear paper was not declared. It is not disputed that the petitioner could avail two chances to appear in the re-appear paper. She has availed one chance and could not avail the second chance for which she had submitted the examination form which was rejected by the University. The grouse of the University that the petitioner had not submitted the migration certificate is untenable. If the migration certificate had not been produced, the petitioner would not have been allowed to sit in the examination held in March, 1990. At the time of hearing, it was stated that the petitioner had not deposited the requisite fee. The counsel had to concede that no intimation was sent to the petitioner that her examination form for appearing in the re-appear paper had not been rejected for non-deposit of the requisite fee. We find that the defence of the University is unsustainable and the petitioner has not been treated fairly. We accordingly direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to re-appear in paper-II in the examination to be held in April/May, 1992.