JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner passed the Giani examination in the year 1986 from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. He thereafter took the B.A. Part-II and Part-III examinations in English in the years 1988 and 1989, respectively, of the Panjab University, Chandigarh, under Regulations 2.2 at page 95 of the Panjab University Calendar, Volume II, for the year 1989. He also cleared the additional subject of philosophy in April, 1990 and obtained the B.A. degree in that year. Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement in the Tribune dated November 1, 1995, inviting applications for admission to the one year Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication Course. The petitioner believing himself to be a graduate of the Panjab University, applied for admission to the course and was admitted to respondent No. 2 College on the basis of his B.A. degree and the other classes w.e.f. 15th November, 1995. Respondent No. 1 the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, demanded a migration certificate from the petitioner and the same was obtained from the Panjab University and handed over to the said respondent. The petitioner's admission was, however, cancelled vide Annexure P-5, dated 21.12.1996, on the ground the the B.A. Course that he had undertaken in the Panjab University Chandigarh, had not been recognized by the Guru Nanak Dev University. The order Annexure P-5 was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ petition No. 3091 of 1996 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16th October, 1996. The Division Bench found that the B.A. degree under Regulation 2.2 had not been recognized by the Guru Nanak Dev University and as the petitioner was not eligible for admission, his admission had been rightly cancelled on that account. The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Appeal No. 3709-10/97 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench and that too was dismissed on 17th July, 1997 vide Annexure P-7 with the observation that as the respondent-University had been at fault in giving admission to the petitioner which had resulted in the unfortunate situation that he was facing, it was appropriate that the University should try to find a way out to regularise his admission. The petitioner accordingly represented to the respondent- University vide Annexure P-12 and R-1/1 and these too have been declined vide Annexures P-13 and R-1/2 dated 12.1.1997 and 22.8.1997, respectively. It appears that subsequently the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, issued a circular dated 4.9.1997, Annexure P-8 to the petition, in which it was intimated that as the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, had recognized the one sitting B.A. Degree of all the Accredited Universities in India, the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar had also recognized the one sitting B.A. Degrees. It is the petitioner's case now that notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, his case was required to be re-considered in the light of Annexure P-8, as the one sitting B.A. Degree could not be put on a higher pedestal than the B.A. Degree obtained by the petitioner under Regulation 2.2 of the Panjab University Calendar.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case and a written statement has been put on record on behalf of respondent No. 1. The stand taken in the written statement is that there had been no change in the circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition and Annexure P-8 pertained only to the recognition of the one sitting B.A. Degree and not of the B.A. Degree obtained by the petitioner. It has also been highlighted (that in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal), the petitioner's case had been reconsidered but though the respondent-University was sympathetic to his cause, it was not possible to grant any benefit in the light of the legal position.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Pheruman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has sought to reiterate some of the arguments that had been raised before the Division Bench in the earlier petition. These arguments are not open to the petitioner in the light of the earlier proceedings. To my mind, the petitioner can, if at all, take advantage of any event that might have come into existence after the dismissal of the Civil Appeal on 17th July, 1997.