IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 5841 of 2009
Date of Decision: July 29, 2009
Derrick S Failbus
...Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab Technical University and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
prays for quashing of notification dated 22.2.2006 (P-1) to the extent
it relates to the last date of passing of examinations up to 31.12.2007.
It has further been prayed that direction be issued to the respondent
Punjab Technical University to grant equal number of chances to the
petitioner as has been given to other batches of students studying in
the University.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2001 the
petitioner took admission in the four years degree course in the
C.W.P. No. 5841 of 2009
Mechanical Engineering in the Beant College of Engineering and
Technology, Gurdaspur-respondent No. 2 which is affiliated to
respondent No. 1 University, which was started in August 2001 and
completed in August 2005.
3. On 22.2.2006, the Board of Governors of the respondent
University took a decision to grant an additional opportunity to old
students to clear their backlog of reappear papers (subjects) and
accordingly a notification was issued amending the regulations (P-1).
In para (a) of the notification it has been postulated that the maximum
duration for earning all subjects of a particular course would be twice
the duration of the respective regular course. This condition was to
apply to the current students who were not able to clear their course
within the maximum duration stipulated under the un-amended
regulations. In this manner, by amending the regulations additional
chance was provided to the students to clear their examinations.
However, in the later part of para (a) of the notification a rider was
imposed that such examinations would be conducted only when the
University examinations in the respective subjects is held in the
normal course between 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2007 and no additional
chance to clear the backlog was available after 31.12.2007.
4. It has been claimed that the petitioner was not able to
clear one of his paper of 5th Semester in the subject of ‘Heat Transfer’,
having Code No. ME-303. It is claimed that in February 2006, the
petitioner was able to get a job in a Company in Delhi and in
December 2006 he appeared in the re-appear examination of the said
paper. The grievance of the petitioner is that the result of his re-
appear examination held in December 2006 was never communicated
C.W.P. No. 5841 of 2009
to him despite repeated requests. On inquiries he was told that the
result would be conveyed to him after its receipt.
5. On 19.2.2009, the employer of the petitioner issued a
notice to him to complete submission of documents including
documents showing academic qualifications. The petitioner was
required to submit the documents by 16.3.2009 (P-3). The petitioner
again inquired from respondent No. 2 about his result and came to
know that he again failed in the re-appear examination, result of
which was declared on 30.5.2007 (P-4). On 19.3.2009, the petitioner
made a representation to the respondent University and requested for
granting him one additional chance to clear the examination (P-5).
According to the petitioner no decision has been taken on his
representation. Even on account of his failure to pass the
examination he had to resign from his job on 30.3.2009 (P-6).
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the paper book with their able assistance we are of the view
that the issue raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra.
Similar controversy came up for our consideration in CWP Nos.
16521 and 20888 of 2008 wherein the impugned notification dated
22.2.2006 (P-1) was subject matter of challenge. After considering
the rival contentions of the parties as well as the contents of the
impugned notification dated 22.2.2006 we have dismissed the
aforementioned writ petitions vide order dated 14.7.2009 passed in
CWP No. 16521 of 2008 (Sachin Nanda and others v. The Punjab
Technical University and another) by observing as under:-
” This Court, in our considered opinion, in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
C.W.P. No. 5841 of 2009
Constitution of India, is highly constrained to grant the
relief prayed for in the instant petitions. Conduct of
examinations or grant of additional chances to clear the
backlog of reappear are in the realm of policy matters
lying within the exclusive domain of the respondent-
University. Even though petitioners, by fixing last date
for clearing backlog arrears as 31.12.2007, may have
been put at a less advantageous position vis-a-vis
students of older batches, yet this Court cannot direct the
respondent-University to grant still more additional
chances to the petitioners holding that such a disparity is
arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The Board of Governors of respondent-
University has taken a conscious decision to grant as a
special privilege/concession to all the old students
additional chances by adopting a deadline i.e. 31.12.2007
as a matter of academic policy to bring about academic
certainty. Merely because in uniformly implementing
that policy, some students are put in a less advantageous
position, would not be sufficient to hold that the policy is
discriminatory and arbitrary.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman,
J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik
and others, 2000(1) RSJ 586 while considering the case
of issue of notification by the State Education Board
permitting scrapping of the entire examination in a centre
reported of mass copying, as well as of a notification
C.W.P. No. 5841 of 2009
cancelling the entire examination of Higher Secondary
Part II for regular candidates held in May, June 1993 in
the centres stated therein on account of mass copying and
violation of sanctity of the examinations, on a plea raised
by some of the meritorious students, who were affected
by such cancellation held in para 21 of the judgement
that a notification cannot be struck down as
discriminatory merely because in implementing the same
injustice is likely to be suffered by some students.
Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned
notification dated 26.2.2006 (Annexure P/2). Hence both
the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to
costs.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
successfully controvert the aforementioned legal position in the
instant petition. Accordingly, following the same principle of law and
precedent instant petition is also dismissed. No costs.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JASWANT SINGH)
July 29, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor