VIMAL KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Vimal Kumar has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for the quashing of the decision of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, dated 9th Jan., 1990 , and 12th Feb., 1990, (Annexures P. 2 and P. 1, respectively,) by which extension of one trimester in the study period has been declined to the petitioner arbitrarily even though such permission had been granted by the respondent-University to a number of persons, in the past.

(2.) The petitioner is on the rolls of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, and at present is a final year student of B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons). According to the University regulations, a student of the Degree Course has to register 18 trimesters out of which 17 have already been completed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, due to serious illness of his mother, he had to attend to her and donate blood also and on that account he could not concentrate on his studies. Consequently, he could not fulfil the condition of 2.5 Grade Points in the first extended trimester during Aug., 1988, to Nov., 1988. He secured 1.76 Overall Grade Point Average (O.G.P.A.) and was not allowed to appear in the second extended trimester. At present, the petitioner requires only 9 credit hours for the completion of his studies, for which extension of two more trimesters was sought by him. This extension was sought by the petitioner as, according to h:m. the University has been granting such extensions liberally, if not indiscriminately, in the recent past. Some of the instances cited in the writ petition are(i) Chamkaur Singh, L-81-A-138-BIV ; (ii) Gurbinder Singh, L-80-A-129 BIV ; (ii,) Jasbir Singh, L-80-A-26 BV ; and (iv) Daljit Singh-82-V-17 B , etc Despite this, the extension sought by the petitioner was declined by the University authorities because the petitioner failed to achieve the stipulated O.G.P.A. in view of his poor performance in the examination. Before coming to the Court, the petitions served a legal notice by counsel also, but even that did not have the desired effect.

(3.) When the case came up for motion hearing on 18th April, 1990, after notice of motion was issued on 9th April, 1990, the learned counsel appearing serious illness of his mother - Extension declined because the petitioner failed cause of education. for the respondent-University, prayed for time to file the return to the writ petition. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 30th April, 1990. on the adjourned date also as the reply was not filed by the University; the writ petition was admitted, and keeping in view the urgency of the matter, the case was ordered to be listed for final nearing on 7th May, 1990. Even till today, when the case was called for hearing, no reply has been filed by the University. However, Mr. J. S. Khehar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University, pleaded that it was for the Academic Council of the University to decide whether extension in the study period was to be granted in a particular case or not and that it was not a right of any student to claim the same. Regarding the instances cited by the petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition, the learned counsel could not admit or refute the same in the absence of written instructions in the form of an affidavit or otherwise from the University.