CHETNA SHARMA Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chetna Sharma in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to declare her result of B.A. Part I Examination in which she appeared under Roll No. 18496 in April, 1989. The petitioner appeared in 10 + 2 (Commerce) Examination of Board of School Education, Haryana held in April, 1988 but was declared fail. However, she appeared in 10 + 2 examination held in September, 1988 and was declared pass. She secured 179 marks out of total 400 marks. She sent her admission form for B.A. Part-I examination to be held by the respondents during April, 1989 with necessary fee as a private candidate duly attested by the Principal, Government National College, Sirsa, which was duly received by the respondents. The respondents, however, sent a letter to the petitioner asking her to send her 10 + 2 April Detailed Marks Certificate in original. The aforesaid order was complied with. However, the respondents informed her vide letter dated 17th of February, 1989 that since she had passed Senior Secondary Certificate Examination, 1988 with full subjects, she cannot be allowed to pass two tests in one academic year. The petitioner explained the respondents the purpose of imposing one year condition which must elapse between two examinations. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in B.A. Part I examination of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in all the papers in April, 1989. Her result was declared in June, 1989 which was shown as 'Result Late Eligibility'. She thereafter served a legal notice to Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra regarding declaration of result held in April 1989, but when nothing came out, she filed the present petition. This petition was admitted on August 28, 1989. Respondents were directed to declare the result of the petitioner within 15 days and she was permitted to appear in the next examination subject to the final decision of the writ petition. The case was to be listed for hearing within three months. Even though that was the order of the motion Bench, the matter has come up for hearing, thus, after a period of more than three years and meanwhile it is the admitted position that not only the petitioner had appeared in B.A. Part II but also had appeared in B.A. Part III. The result of B.A. Part III has been declared wherein she has been declared pass. In view of the facts detailed above. I do not wish to go into the points on which the prayer in the present petition has been opposed by the respondents and as in such situation even though the admissions are irregular or not strictly in accordance with the prospectus or the rules, the same are to be regularised by the Courts. Such a course has been adopted in a number of cases, as also in case Dr. Kanwaldeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 1992 3 SLR 245(Pb. and Hry.).

(2.) In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed. University is directed to declare the result of B.A. Part I within one month from today. There shall be no orders as to costs.