PUNITA KUMARI Vs. H.P. UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is aggrieved since she has not granted admission to the next class. We find that the Vice Chancellor is vested with the power in such circumstances to look into each case and take appropriate action. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: The petitioner may file appropriate representation before the Vice Chancellor of the first respondent -University within a week from today and the Vice Chancellor shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, equity and justice within another one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the representation by the petitioner.

(2.) WE make it clear that the Vice Chancellor shall not reject the representation on the only ground that the candidate will not be in a position to make up the attendance in the academic year since there is a provision under Ordinance 6.2 for condonation of shortage of lectures upto 10% in theory and practical and the further requirement that the candidate shall not in any case fall short of 60% attendance. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.