IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.583 of 2009
Date of Decision: March 03, 2009
Amit Kumar
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjeev K. Tamak, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Anjum Ahmad, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana, for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
. . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition filed under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays
for issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to
appear in final theory papers (3rd Semester) for the
course of Diploma in Civil Engineering of the State
Board Technical Examinations commencing w.e.f.
CWP No.583 of 2009 [2] 2.1.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner took admission in
Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak, Haryana
(respondent No.3) in Diploma Course in Civil
Engineering through Central Entrance Examination of
the Diploma in Engineering Programmes (DEP 2007).
The petitioner completed the 1st and 2nd Semester
examinations successfully. The petitioner was
promoted to the 3rd Semester.
In the 3rd Semester, the petitioner
attended the classes of theory and practical and
submitted his permission -cum- admission form for
appearing in the State Board of Technical Education
Haryana Exam. On 19.11.2008, however, father of the
petitioner met with an accident which resulted in
his death. Due to consequent circumstances, the
petitioner could not attend the classes thereafter.
Death Certificate has been appended as Annexure P-3.
The petitioner was sick in the month of September
2008 and therefore, he had to be hospitalised.
Medical Certificate has been appended as Annexure
P-4 to justify the absence of the petitioner from
the Institute. Principal of the Institute had been
informed about the hardship faced by the petitioner.
The petitioner was allowed to take practical
examinations by respondent No.3, held w.e.f.
15.11.2008 to 17.11.2008.
The datesheet was circulated for the
CWP No.583 of 2009 [3]
theory examinations of 3rd Semester that commenced
w.e.f. 2.1.2009. When the petitioner wanted to
appear, he was not allowed to sit in examinations.
When the petitioner met the Principal of the
Institute, no reason was assigned, however,
subsequently the petitioner was informed that there
was shortage of lectures of the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that
no prior notice was given to the petitioner that he
was falling short of lectures. The petitioner made a
representation (Annexure P-5). It transpires that he
had attended 67% lectures whereas the petitioner was
required to attend 80% of the delivered lectures for
theory and practical classes combined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in
view of his contentions, has cited judgment rendered
by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition
No.10630 of 2008, titled ‘Suresh Parmar vs. State of Haryana &
Others’ decided on 3.9.2008.
Learned counsel for the respondent-
State says that because the rules allow the
respondents only to give benefit to the petitioner
to a limited extent, considering the rigours of the
rules, no further relief could be given to the
petitioner. The hardship faced by the petitioner,
however, has been admitted.
Learned counsel for the respondents
however, have not been able to distinguish the
judgment rendered in Suresh Parmar’s case (supra).
CWP No.583 of 2009 [4]
I have considered the facts and
circumstances of the case. When the facts are
collectively considered, it becomes clear that the
petitioner was successful in Central Entrance
Examination scheduled for admission to the Course.
The petitioner had been a regular student and has
been able to clear 1st and 2nd Semesters also. The
respondents have not disputed the factum of ailment
of the petitioner, death of father of the petitioner
and consequent hardship faced by the family.
Clearly, the circumstances being faced by the
petitioner were unusually harsh and beyond control
of the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion
that the facts and circumstances of the case entitle
the petitioner to allow him to pursue his further
studies as bonafide endeavour of the petitioner to
pursue studies has been established.
By virtue of interim order dated 16.1.2009, the petitioner was allowed to take
examination for the 3rd Semester. The petitioner has
already appeared. The ratio of the judgment
delivered in Suresh Parmar’s case (supra) also helps the
case of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the petitioner
is entitled to clemency and lenient approach.
The petition is allowed.
It is directed that the petitioner
shall be allowed to continue his studies. It is
however made clear that the petitioner shall be
CWP No.583 of 2009 [5]
required to attend the classes as per rules and
regulations for the 4th Semesters onwards.
(AJAI LAMBA)
March 03, 2009 JUDGE
avin