JAGDEEP SINGH Vs. THE PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared in the Pre-Medical Test for admission to the MBBS course and having secured his merit at No. 247 was put in the waiting list. On the availability of some of the CBSE seats, the petitioner was allowed admission in the Ist Professional MBBS Course on 29th January, 1990, whereas the regular classes had started in September 1989. These students appeared the Ist Professional MBBS Examination in December 1990 but the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the same as he had not completed the academic course of 1-1/2 years as provided by the Ordinance of the Punjabi University, Patiala. The petitioner accordingly appeared, though on a provisional basis, in June 1991 in the supplementary examination but his result was made subject to the approval of the Academic Council of the University. The result of the supplementary examination held in June, 1991 was declared in the month of August but, as the admission of the petitioner to the examination in question was only provisional subject to the approval of the council, his result was not declared. This approval was received from the Academic Council vide Punjabi University letter dated 26th November, 1991 and was formally communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 dated 5th December, 1991, and the petitioner was declared to have passed the Ist Professional MBBS Examination. The 2nd Professional Examination was scheduled to begin on 4th December, 1992 and the petitioner apprehending that he would not be allowed to appear as a period of 1-1/2 years had not elapsed between 5th December, 1991 and 8th December, 1992, as required by Ordinance 15 dealing with the 2nd Professional Examination, filed the present petition and after hearing counsel for the parties, this Court on 3rd December, 1992 directed that the petitioner be allowed to appear in the 2nd Professional MBBS examination (Supplementary) at his own risk subject to the decision of the writ petition. Vide orders dated 26th February, 1993, this Court also directed that the petitioner be allowed to attend the classes of the 3rd Professional MBBS Course subject to the result of the petition and it is the conceded case of the parties that the petitioner set in the 2nd Professional MBBS Examination and cleared some of the papers whereas the others were cancelled on account of the fact that he did not have the requisite 75 per cent lectures.

(2.) The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition as also at the time of arguments addressed by his counsel. Mr. Deepak Sibal was that the admission of the petitioner had been concededly regularised as far as the Ist Professional MBBS course was concerned, but the inordinate delay caused by the academic Council i.e. between June, 1991 to 5th December, 1991 in arriving at its decision should not be allowed to prejudice as had the decision been taken within a reasonable time, the petitioner would have completed the academic period of 18 months of the course as required by Ordinance 15. It has also been urged that the University itself had been deviating from applying the provisions of Ordinance 15 by allowing some students to appear in the examination though they had not completed a study period of 1-1/2 years and as such the period so stipulated was not mandatory. The petitioner has also placed reliance in support of his case on single bench decisions of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9135 of 1992 decided on Ist December, 1992 and C.W.P. No. 10308 of 1992, decided on 18th November, 1992.

(3.) The case of the respondents, however, is that the judgment aforecited could not be sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab and others vs. Suchintan and others, 1993 3 JT 727in which their Lordships have held while upsetting a judgment of this Court, that the period of study provided in the Regulations for making a candidate eligible to appear in an examination was sacrosanct. Reliance has also been placed a Single Bench decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 2290 of 1991 decided on 3.6.1991. It has also been urged that the Supreme Court in the cited case had held that the question of any equity arising in favour of a student must give way in the presence of a specific regulation and although the student may be entitled to sympathy yet no relief can be granted by the Court in such a situation.