ADARSH JAUHAR Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is posted as Assistant Professor and Head of the Department of Botany at Post Graduate Government College for Men, Sector 11, Chandigarh. She is required to attend two refresher courses to enable her to be eligible for grant of selection grade. The petitioner is due to retire in the month of June 2014 and has been permitted by the college authorities to attend two consecutive refresher courses and is granted leave for the said courses. It is alleged that the petitioner is already attending 1st course w.e.f. 14.11.2013 to 4.12.2013 at Punjabi University, Patiala from where she would be relieved after Valedictory function at 11:00 AM on 4.12.2013 but incidentally the 2nd course is slated to be started w.e.f. 4.12.2013 at 9:30 AM at Chandigarh. It is stated that the petitioner applied to the Registrar of the University on 30.11.2013, for allowing her to join refresher course w.e.f. 4.12.2013 in the afternoon instead of forenoon. It is alleged that the Director of Academic Staff College (ASC) told her that if she does not join the course by 9:30 AM, she would not be permitted to join the course at all.

(2.) Since, there is no order attached with the writ petition with regard to the representation of the petitioner having been passed by the Registrar of the University, it appears that the representation has not been decided, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join three weeks refresher course starting from 4.12.2013 w.e.f. afternoon session.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would make up the loss of four hours study of the forenoon session by completing that study in the late evening hours. Therefore, the respondents may be asked to allow the petitioner to join the course in the afternoon session. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to show any provision of law which entitles her for such kind of permission by the respondents. It is well settled that in the case of the issuance of mandamus, the petitioner must show her legal right and the corresponding duty on the part of other side. Since, nothing has been brought on record with regard to the right of the petitioner and the corresponding duty of the respondents, I do not find it to be a fit case in which directions can be issued to the respondents for the permission sought for by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is denuded of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.