ASWINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aswinder Singh in the present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash but imposed by the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana, Chandigarh on the internal assessment in respect of theory papers of first year of Diploma Course in Pharmacy awarded by Maharishi Pharmacy College, Traori, District Karnal during the assessment year 1983-84 as also issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for the year 1991 after restoting the cut imposed by the said respondent. The facts of the cases be noticed first.

(2.) Petitioner joined the Diploma in Pharmacy Course in Maharishi Pharmacy College, G.T. Road, Tarori District Karnal during the session 1983-84. Under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 , the State Board of Technical Education is the authority competent to hold the examinations and award Diploma in Pharmacy. During the academic session i.e. 1983-84, which is stated to be first session of Maharishi Pharmacy College, (hereinafter to be referred as respondent No. 2), there arose some dispute between the management of respondent No. 2 and the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as respondent No. 1). It is pleaded that respondent No. 1 did not hold any examination of the students of respondent No. 2 and later on after the expiry of full one year when there was big hue and cry and strike by the students, respondent No. 1 decided to hold the examination and called for internal assessment from respondent No. 2 which was sent somewhere in the year 1985. It is stated that respondent No. 1 could not reconcile its disputes with respondent No. 2 and for that precise reason, a malicious design of desisting the students from joining respondent No. 2 in future was endeavoured by imposing a cut of 50% on the marks of internal assessment awarded by respondent No. 2. It is pleaded that the petitioner obtained 18 marks in the internal assessment but on account of the cut imposed, the same were reduced to nine. It is this cut which is styled to be discriminatory without any guidelines provided in the Regulations and by adopting policy of pick and choose. With a view to highlight discrimination, it is further pleaded that cut was not imposed on any Government institution throughout the State and further even privately managed institutions like Hindu College of Pharmacy Sonepat, Jat College of Pharmacy, Butana and many others were exempted from the cut being imposed in the internal assessment and it was only imposed on the Institutions, the management whereof had earned the wrath of respondent. It is further averred that thereafter the petitioner appeared in the said examination but because of enmity and heart itching between the respondents, his fate remained the same. The petitioner then approached respondent No. 1 for rechecking of his paper which according to the Regulations is to see that all the questions answered have been properly evaluated and the marks so awarded are properly counted. This course was not followed in the case of petitioner. The final result card for the year 1991 has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. In the result card, the petitioner is shown to have obtained 37 marks in the theory of General Chemistry and it is pleaded that if the cut imposed is restored then he would secure 46% marks against the pass percentage of 40.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised four points for consideration by this Court.