SAURAV GUPTA Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 6918 of 2014 Application, filed for placing on record written statement, on behalf of the respondent, is allowed. Said document is taken on record. CWP No.9727 of 2014: Admittedly, the petitioner failed to deposit the fees by the prescribed period, which was 12.05.2014, as per Annexure P1, for the 3 year LL.B. Course.

(2.) In the written statement, filed by the respondent also, it is averred that the deposition of fees was delayed by one day. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon news item dated 18.05.2014 whereby the website had been reopened for candidates who were unable to complete their forms. It is submitted that the admission has to be completed in a time-bound manner and if somebody fails to deposit the fees within that time-frame, he will not be eligible as the cutoff date fixed in the prospectus is perfectly legal and binding.

(3.) A perusal of the news item also goes on to show that the candidates who had deposited their fees in time but were unable to complete their forms on-line were allowed to complete the same on the said website, which was obviously due to a technical fault but the fees had been deposited in time. The petitioner's case cannot be considered as the prospectus has the force of law in view the law laid down by four Full Benches of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab 1993(4) S.C.T. 328 : 1993(2) PLR 212 , Raj Singh Vs. Maharashi Dayanand University, 1994(2) S.C.T 766 : 1994(2) SLR 581 , Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997(3) S.C.T. 526 : 1997(5) SLR 163 and Indu Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab, 1999(4) S.C.T 113 : 1999(4) RSJ 667 .