AMIT PURI Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner appeared in the M.Sc. Ist year examination in May, 1993. The result was declared in the last week of August, 1993. The petitioner was shown to have failed in two papers. He applied for re -evaluation and rechecking. The result of re -evaluation was declared on November 4, 1993. The petitioner was shown to have passed in one of the subjects. As a result, he had to reappear in only one paper. On November 8, 1993 the petitioner applied for admission to the second year. His case was forwarded by the Professor and Head of the Department of Physics to the Dean, Academic Affairs on the same day. However, his request was declined vide letter dated November 11, 1993 on the ground that the Syndicate had taken decision that the facility of late admission cannot be given in the case of re -evaluation." Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on November 25, 1993. Vide order, dated December 22, 1993, the Bench directed the respondents to admit the petitioner to M.Sc. Part -II at his own risk and responsibility and subject to result of the writ petition. The petitioners complaint is that under the regulations governing the re -evaluation of answer books, the University was bound to declare his result within 15 days of the submission of the applications and that he cannot be made to suffer on account of delay of more than two months caused by the University.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, it has been inter -alia averred that "no doubt there is provision for declaration of the result of re -evaluation within 15 days after the last date fixed for the receipt of application form but the re -evaluation of papers is a time consuming process depending upon the examiner/examiners to whom the papers are sent for re -evaluation. It is thus practically not possible to declare the result within the aforesaid stipulated period." It has been further averred that "no late admission should be granted after 30th November under any circumstances and that the facility of late admission should at all not be granted in the case of reevaluation." It has been emphasised that in case of Science students grant of late admission is not conducive to good education and, therefore, the claim made by the petitioner should be rejected.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , it is held that the petitioner was entitled to be admitted on November 8, 1993 when his application had been duly forwarded by the Professor and Head of the Department of Physics to the Dean, Academic Affairs. The action of the University in rejecting the request vide letter dated November 11, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -4 with the writ petition, was arbitrary. It cannot, thus, be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed.