PARKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) In the reply, it is stated as follows:

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared for the examination in June 1979, as can be seen from Annexure A- 3. But it is the University which delayed the publication of the result for a long period after November, 1979. The contention of the petitioner that once he has been declared as passed in the examination held in June, 1979, for all purposes, he should be treated to have been qualified as per the examination which was held in June, 1979, the date of examination. We find force in the submissions. Since no laches is attributed on the part of the petitioner for the delay on the part of the University for publication of the result, the matter requires fresh look if necessary by giving the relaxation as is permissible under the Rules in terms of equity and justice. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate action in the light of the observations contained in this judgment within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the reply furnished by the Director before the first respondent.