High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vickey Dahiya vs M.D.University on 15 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vickey Dahiya vs M.D.University on 15 July, 2009
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.

                                        LPA No.600 of 2009 (O&M)
                                        Date of decision: 15.7.2009

Vickey Dahiya
                                                         -----Appellant
                            Vs.
M.D.University, Rohtak and another
                                                           Respondent



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY


Present:- Mr. Nitesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.


Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned

Single Judge dated 27.5.2009, dismissing the writ petition, challenging

cancellation of his admission and striking off his name from the

College rolls.

2. The appellant took admission to BDS in the year 2005-06

and failed to pass examination of First Year within three years as

required. He also did not attend the requisite number of lecturers. On

that account, his name was struck off from the college rolls and his

admission was cancelled in accordance with the rules and regulations

applicable.

LPA No.600 of 2009 (O&M) 2

3. The above action was challenged. Learned Single Judge

held that there was no ground to interfere, as it was not disputed that

the case of the appellant was covered by the provision of Clause 3.5 of

the BDS Ordinance, providing for striking off name from college rolls

for absence for more than 15 days at a stretch. Case of the appellant

was also covered under Clause 3.1, which required attendance of 75%

of lectures, which condition had not been fulfilled by the appellant.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Only contention raised is that the appellant should have

been given one more chance to take examination under the un-amended

regulation.

6. It having not been disputed that the appellant was not

eligible having not attended the requisite number of lectures and having

not passed the examination of First Year within three years, there is no

ground for interference with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge.

7. The appeal is dismissed.


                                             (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
                                                     Judge



July 15, 2009                                    (Daya Chaudhary)
'gs'                                                  Judge