Harinder Singh Grewal vs State of Punjab and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Harinder Singh Grewal, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to appear/take the examination of First Semester of E.T.T. being conducted by the respondents from 22nd January, 2002 by computing his attendance from the date of admission.

Brief facts, on which relief aforesaid is sought to rest, reveal that the petitioner appeared in entrance test of E.T.T. on 15th April. 2001, for the Session 2000-2002, result whereof was declared on 12th May, 2001. The petitioner appears for interview at Mansa as per the directions of respondents on 13th June, 2001. Result of general category, to which the petitioner belongs, was declared on 22nd July, 2001, whereas result of the candidates belonging to the sports category was declared on 8th August, 2001. Inasmuch as, the petitioner was higher in merit and was still not admitted, he filed a representation to the concenied authorities requesting that he should be admitted to the course under contention. When his entities brought no tangible result, he filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 12318 of 2001 on ''17th August, 2001, praying therein that he should be considered for admission to E.T.T. Course for the Session 2002-2002 on the ground that he had secured more marks than the candidates admitted in the said Course, Meanwhile, regular classes for E.T.T. commenced on 13th August, 2001. The writ petition aforesaid was allowed vide order dated 22nd November, 2001, pursuant to which, the petitioner, indeed, was admitted to the Course on 18th December, 2001, On 10th January, 2002, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents requesting that he be allowed to appear in First Semester of E.T.T. examination. His aforesaid request was turned down on the ground that as he had not attended 75% lectures in the First Semester, under the Rules and thus he could not be permitted to take the examination. Hence, the present writ,

Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that admission of the petitioner in E.T.T. Course at the time when regular classes were started was denied to him illegally and that being so, he could not be made to suffer on account of fault of the authorities simply for the reasons that he could vindicate his stand in the Court of law, which in normal course of things, takes time. For his aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Deepak Sood v. State of Punjab and others, C.W.P. No. 3387 of 1999, decided on 12th July, 1999. Facts of case aforesaid reveal that the student/petitioner in the case aforesaid was denied admission to the E.T.T. Course wrongfully for which he filed writ petition, which was allowed. While ordering admission to the petitioner to the concerned course, it has been mentioned towards the end of the judgment that "it is clarified that in both the categories mentioned, the respondents would compute the attendance of the candidate from the date they are given admission/re-admission to the course in question on account of this order." It is only from the lines mentioned in quotes above that it has been canvassed before us that the petitioner in the present case is entitled to take the examination of First Semeser irrespective of the fact that he had not attended 75% lectures as required under the Rules, as it was not his fault that the admission was not given to him in time. In the judgment aforesaid, there is no plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that since he is going to be admitted during the currency of the Course, the lectures that he could not attend should be condoned for the purpose of taking the examination nor this aspect has been dealt with and as mentioned above, while giving admission all that has been stated is that the respondents would compute the attendance of the candidates from the date they are given admission. From the reading of the lines, as quoted above, it cannot be conclusively argued that learned Single Judge had condoned the lectures of the petitioner in the said case. Reading of the lines aforesaid can also be interpreted to mean that lectures of the petitioner would start counting from the date when he was to be given admission as otherwise it would have been also mentioned that non-attendance of the lectures earlier in point of time, i.e., before his admission would not work to disadvantage in computing 75% lectures as required. In our view, the lines aforesaid in the judgment rendered in Deepak Sood v. State of Punjab and others, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. That apart, petitioner is undergoing a specialized course and the rules do not permit a student to take examination unless he secures 75% attendance. Inasmuch as, the petitioner was admitted on 18th December, 2001 and the examination for the First Semester was lo start from 22nd January, 2002, it would be amply clear that he had attended the course for just over a period of one month. It may be unfortunate that the petitioner could not be admitted in time but he has attended at the most I/5th of the lectures, whereas the requirement is of 75% under the rules. This much of percentage of condoning the lectures would be completely violative of rules, particularly when such a requirement pertains to a specialized course.

Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same in limine.