MISS RANJANA SHARMA Vs. THE PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had appeared in the Examination of B.Com held by the Delhi University in the year 1991. Before the result was declared she sat in the entrance test held by the Panjab University for admission to the B.Ed. course for the Session 1991-92. The duration of the course is one year. The petitioner was successful in the entrance test. Before she was to appear in the interview for admission to B.Ed. course in the Government College of Education, Chandigarh her result of B.Com. was declared by the Delhi University in which she obtained 37.8% marks. Initially, she submitted to the College Authorities a provisional certificate showing her marks, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-1. Thereafter, she also submitted the original certificate from the Delhi University showing that she had passed her B.Com. Examination obtaining 37.8% marks. She was called for interview by the College Authorities and was ultimately granted admission. It may be observed here that according to the eligibility criteria for admission to the B.Ed. course, only those candidates were eligible to appear in the entrance test who had obtained at least 45% marks in the qualifying Examination. Admittedly, the petitioner did not secure the minimum requisite percentage of marks in the qualifying Examination. In spite of that, she was admitted by the College Authorities in the B.Ed. course. When the petitioner's application was forwarded to the University by the College Authorities for allowing her to appear in the B.Ed. Examination which was to be held in March, 1992, she was declined permission by the University to sit in the examination on the ground that she initially ineligible to get admission in the B.Ed. course in-as-much as she had obtained less than 45% marks in the qualifying Examination. This led the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition. The motion Bench while issuing notice of motion on March 24, 1992 permitted the petitioner to take the B.Ed. Examination which was to commence on March 26, 1992.

(2.) In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the petitioner did appear in the B.Ed. Examination held by the University in March, 1992. When ultimately, the Writ Petition was admitted on July 22, 1992, the motion Bench had directed the University to declare the result of the petitioner and I am told that the petitioner has passed the Examination in the Ist Division.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner had sat in the entrance test for admission to the B.Ed. Course, her result of B.Com. had not been declared. After the said result was declared by the Delhi University she duly informed the College Authorities of having obtained 37.8% marks. In other words, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner never withheld any information from the College Authorities and never tried to mislead the Authorities. In spite of the fact that the petitioner had obtained less than the requisite percentage of marks in the qualifying test, she was not only called for the interview by the College Authorities but was in fact given admission also. According to the learned counsel, it was not open to the respondent Authorities to cancel the admission or decline permission to the petitioner to sit in the B.Ed. final Examination as the petitioner had not only completed the entire Course but in fact had also appeared in the Examination by virtue of the interim orders of this Court. If any body was to be blamed for the wrong admission it could be the College Authorities.