SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions 1337 and 2217 of 1996 in which common question of law and fact arise. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in CWP 1337 of 1996 shall govern the decision in the other case as well. For the sake of convenience facts are taken from CWP 1337 of 1996.

(2.) The State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab (for short 'the Board') conducts Two Year Diploma Course in Pharmacy in accordance with the Regulations framed by the Pharmacy Council of India. As per Regulation 10 of the Pharmacy Council of India Rules and Regulations, 1981 (for short 'the Regulations') a student who has passed his matriculation examination is eligible for admission to the course after clearing the entrance test. A student who has passed his 10+2 examination is eligible for admission to the second year of the Diploma Course provided that he attends the classes and clears those subjects as prescribed for the Diploma in Pharmacy (Part I) in which he has not previously passed at an equivalent examination. This can be done simultaneously with or independently of the Diploma in Pharmacy (Part II-A) course. If a student has passed his 10+2 examination in the medical stream he is required to appear in one deficient paper which is Anatomy, Physiology and Health Education (APH). On the other hand, a student who has passed the 10+2 (Non-Medical) has to clear two deficient papers, namely, APH and Biology.

(3.) Petitioners who had passed their 10+2 examination cleared the entrance test for admission to the Diploma course and were granted admission in the first year of the course in 1992. After attending the classes they appeared in the deficient papers only in August, 1993. It may be mentioned that they did not appear in all the papers of the first year course and their case is that the Principal of the Indo-Soviet Friendship College of Pharmacy, Moga (respondent 3) told them that they could appear only in the deficient papers. When the result was declared they were successful in the papers in which they appeared but they were shown absent in the other papers. The College then promoted the petitioners to the second year of the course without any intimation to the Board. However, in December, 1993 the Principal of the College wrote to the Board that the petitioners who had passed their 10+2 examination in Medical and Non-Medical streams were entitled to exemption in general subjects and could appear in the deficient papers only and the Board was requested to modify their result cards pertaining to the first year of the course. The Board, however, did not agree. According to it, the petitioners were required to appear in all the papers of the first year of the course. It is not in dispute that the petitioners then continued attending classes/lectures in the second year and when they wanted to appear in the second year examination they filled their forms but the Board did not issue roll numbers to them in view of Regulation 10 of the Regulations in terms of which a candidate who had more than two re-appears in the first year could not take the examination for the second year. It was at that stage that the petitioners filed a civil suit and obtained an ad-interim injunction directing the Board to allow them to appear in second year examination. In pursuance to the directions issued by the Court the petitioners appeared in the second year examination in the year 1994. Their result was withheld as according to the Board they were not eligible to appear in the second year examination. Subsequently the petitioners withdrew the suit and on its withdrawal the Board cancelled their result of the second year examination. It was then that the present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Board cancelling the result of the petitioners and also for a direction to the respondent to declare the result of the second year examination.