PUNJAB UNIVERSITY Vs. ISHITA UPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consideration in the present letters patent appeal filed by the Panjab University is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 23/2/2021 passed in CWP No. 20275 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein namely Ishita Uppal which has been allowed by imposing Rs.1,00,000.00 as compensation to be paid by the University and University Institute of Legal Studies (hereinafter referred to as 'UILS') in equal shares. Liberty has been given to recover the same from the erring officials. Resultantly, directions were issued to restore and release the entire benefit of freeship/EWS scholarship to the writ petitioner while quashing communications dtd. 26/6/2019, 10/7/2019, 19/7/2019 (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-8, respectively).

(2.) The following questions were culled out for adjudication on merits of the controversy by the learned Single Judge:-

(3.) The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the absence of the respondent in the French-III paper of the 6th semester on 14/5/2018 was on account of her medical condition as such and the relevant medical certificate had been duly handed over to the clerk of the institute. It was accordingly held that non-forwarding of the medical certificate of the concerned quarter had made the respondent run around from pillar to post for complete one year. It was noticed that there was an admission as such by the University that the father had also submitted an application on 12/6/2018 that his daughter could not take the examination on account of health problems and the same had also been forwarded to the Controller of Education on 13/6/2018 and that the dealing official of the Examination Branch had telephonically informed her on 25/6/2018 that her case had been cleared by the Doctor of the Health Centre regarding re-conducting of the said paper on medical grounds. It was held that there was specific admission that no individual intimation had been sent to the candidates appearing in the examinations in pursuance of the date sheet dtd. 6/7/2018 and that for a period of one year, no intimation was sent to the petitioner for the request of the French-III paper, whether it has been accepted or rejected by the Vice Chancellor of the Institute. Finding was recorded that it is only after a period of one year the communication had been sent to the petitioner that she had remained absent for the said paper and, therefore, her case was to be treated as compartment/reappear while taking shelter under Clause (vi) of Guideline