KAMAL NAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners joined the Pre-Ayurvedic (G.A.M.S. 1st Year) of Five Year Degree Course offered by the Mastnath Ayurvedic Degree College, Asthal Bohar, Rohtak in July, 1973, Only those students who have passed the Higher Secondary or the Pre-University Examination of a recognised University are eligible for admission to this Course. The College is affiliated to the Haryana State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Haryana, constituted under the Punjab State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act). The State Government had not framed any Bye-Laws under section 17 of the Act for a large number of years which resulted in undue hardship to the students. Miss Kamlesh Rani one of such students-filed a writ petition in this Court during the pendency of which the State Government framed the Bye-Laws and published them in the Haryana Government Gazette dated November 6, 1973.

(2.) During the period when the Bye-Laws had not been framed, the students who had passed certain subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Sanskrit, etc., in the Higher Secondary or Pre-University, Examination were exempt from appearing again in these subjects in the Pre-Ayurvedic Examination. After the promulgation of the Bye-Laws, neither the Faculty nor the Principal of the Institution was left with any authority to grant the exemptions to the students from appearing in these subjects in the Pre-Ayurvedic Examination. It is alleged that the Pre-Ayurvedic Examination was going to commence on May 2, 1974, and not much time was left for the students to prepare these subjects. Since they joined this course in July, 1973, they were governed by the old practice of earning exemption in the subjects which they had passed in the Higher Secondary or Pre-University Examination. On their behalf, it has been asserted that the Bye-Laws could have prospective effect only and applicable to those students only who were to join the Pre-Ayurvedic Examination after their promulgation.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been stated that all these Subjects in which the petitioners claim exemption had been included in the syllabus for Pre-Ayurvedic Examination of this institution. Further, neither in the Prospectus nor in the Syllabus was there any provision for granting exemption. It has also been mentioned that the petitioners could not claim a concession merely because some such concession had in the past been granted to some other students.