ALKA MASIH Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the resolution dated 22.12.2012 (Annexure P5), passed by respondent No.2, the Senate, Panjab University, Chandigarh, whereby, it was resolved that the candidates appearing in the course for Bachelor of Clinical Optometry (Optom), MLT, Radio -Diagnosis and Anesthesia and O.T. Techniques, would be allowed to clear the compartment only in 2 consecutive chances and the maximum number of compartments permitted would be only in 2 subjects and if a candidate had compartment in more than 2 subjects, then he would be treated as fail. The said decision was to be made part of Regulation 10, in admissions for the year 2011 onwards.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioners is that they passed their Intermediate Examinations in Medical stream and secured more than 60% marks and the petitioners were fully eligible to get admission in B.Sc. Medical Technology (Anaesthesia and Operation Theatre Techniques) (hereinafter referred to as the 'course'), run by respondent No.3 -College, being an affiliated college of respondent -University, as per the academic session 2011 -14, qua petitioners No.1 to 3 and for the academic session 2012 -15 qua petitioner No.4. Petitioners No.1 to 3 had taken admission in the session 2011 -14 and started attending the classes and cleared the 1st year examination, passing in all the papers in May/June, 2012 and they were promoted to the 2nd year. They appeared in the 2nd year examination in June, 2013 but could not clear some of the papers. The result was declared on 26.07.2013, showing petitioners No.1 to 3 as reappear in more than 2 subjects. Similarly, petitioner No.4, who had got admission in the academic session 2012 -15 also, could not clear all the papers and the result was shown as reappear in more than 2 subjects. However, petitioners were promoted to the next higher class and had deposited their fees in August, 2013 and they attended their classes for 3rd year in the case of petitioners No.1 to 3 and for 2nd year classes for petitioner No.4. The duty roster, showing the petitioners in higher classes was appended as Annexures P3 and P4. However, when they submitted their fees for the reappear papers, in the last week of October, 2013, no formal receipt was issued to them and they were denied the roll numbers by the University. On enquiry made, it was intimated to them that in view of the resolution dated 22.12.2012 (Annexure P5), the students having compartment/reappear in more than 2 subjects, were to be treated as fail and could not be issued roll numbers. Resultantly, the said resolution dated 22.12.2012 was challenged on the ground of being retrospective in nature and could only be effective on the students who got admission in the subsequent academic year and not for students who had got admission prior to 2012. The principle of promissory estoppel was also pleaded on account of the fact that they had already been promoted to the next higher classes.

(3.) THIS Court, on 19.11.2013, permitted the petitioners to take the examination, fixed in the month of November, onwards and directed the University to issue roll numbers for the examinations which were fixed, subject to the outcome of the writ petition.