SMRITY Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for seeking quashing of the letters dated 07.03.2017 and 16.03.2017 by which admission of the petitioner to the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) has been cancelled.

(2.) In short, the petitioner after completing her B.Sc in the year 2016 applied for admission in the PGDCA. However, at that time, she had compartment in two subjects of 5th semester, namely, Maths and Physics. The petitioner, instead of appearing in the compartment exams, applied for re-evaluation of the marks of the said two papers on 6.6.2016. The reevaluation was not done by the University till the petitioner applied for the admission in the PGDCA on 15.09.2016. However, the result of the reevaluation of the two papers of the 5th semester was declared on 16.12016 and the petitioner was found to have secured more than the pass marks. The net result was that the petitioner was declared to have passed both the subjects of compartment, namely, Maths and Physics of the 5th semester but the respondent has declined admission to the petitioner in PGDCA only on the ground that at the time when the petitioner applied for the admission, she had not passed the qualifying exam.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no doubt, the petitioner had not passed the qualifying exam on 15.9.2016 but before that on 6.6.2016, i.e. three months before, the petitioner had applied for reevaluation of both the papers in which she had compartment but the University took inordinate time to re-evaluate her marks in the papers of Maths and Physics and the result was declared after the admission was taken. It is further submitted that had the University acted in time for the purpose of re-evaluation i.e. before she took admission on 15.9.2016 then the matter would have been altogether different but the petitioner had no control over the University for the purpose of re-evaluation and, therefore, she could not be penalised. In support of her contention, she has relied upon a decision of the Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Arun Gautam and others v. H.P. Technical Education Board and others, 1998(2) SimLC 364 to contend that the result of the reevaluation would relate back to the original result. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Tejinder Singh v. Punjab University, Chandigarh and others, 2014(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 467, to contend that the declaration of result lies exclusively in the hands of the University for which the petitioner should not be penalised.