Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar vs Maharishi Dayanand University ... on 10 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:109379-DB
2023:PHHC:101213-DB
LPA-371-2020 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-371-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.08.2023
Krishan Kumar ....Appellant.
Versus
Maharishi Dayanand University and others ..Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
.......
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
This Intra Court Appeal has been preferred against the
Judgment/ order dated 22.11.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of this
Court, whereby the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that in the year 1999, the appellant took
admission in the course of Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Science
and Engineering in BRCM College of Engineering and Technology, Bahal,
District Bhiwani (respondent No.3), which is a private institute affiliated to
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The duration of the said course
was 04 years. Respondent No.3/College provided the appellant a
Provisional-cum-Character Certificate dated 19.01.2005, on receipt of
which, the appellant was under the belief that he had successfully passed the
Bachelor of Engineering Course and that the degree for the same would be
later issued to him in due course. However, when he obtained a duplicate
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:109379-DB
2023:PHHC:101213-DB
copy of the Detail Marks Card of his 8th Semester he came to know that he
had failed in the subject of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems. When
he approached the university for permitting him to re-appear in the said
subject, they refused to accept his re-appear form. Thereafter, he also gave a
representation dated 03.10.2019 to the respondent-University but to no
avail. Thus, through his petition filed before this Court, the appellant prayed
for the grant of a chance to clear the said subject of his 8th semester. Vide
order dated 22.11.2019, his petition was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge. Hence, the present Intra Court Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that respondent
No.3-College misled the appellant by providing him the Provisional-cum-
Character Certificate dated 19.01.2005 and by even calling him for the 2nd
convocation on 30.04.2005 for handing over to him Bachelor of
Engineering Degree but thereafter, he was told that his result had been
delayed and he would get his degree after 30.09.2005. He has further
contended that the appellant was under the impression that he had
successfully passed his Bachelor of Engineering degree but when he
obtained duplicate copies of Detail Marks Card of the 8th semester only then
did he come to know that he had failed in the subject of Artificial
Intelligence and Expert Systems. Accordingly, he approached the
respondent-University to seek permission to re-appear in the said subject
but was not allowed to do so. Despite his moving a representation dated
03.10.2019 before respondent No.2, no action was taken. The respondents
even refused to accept his re-appear form and therefore, he is suffering for
this inaction on the part of the respondents. He has contended that under
Rule 12 of General Rules for Examinations, Maharshi Dayanand University,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:109379-DB
2023:PHHC:101213-DB
the Vice Chancellor can consider his request for allowing of an extra chance
for clearing his compartment/re-appear. It has also been submitted that the
appellant cannot be said to be at fault as respondent No.3-College provided
him a wrong result and that the impugned order dated 22.11.2019 passed by
learned Single Judge is illegal, unjust and unfair.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and with his
able assistance the records of the case have also been perused.
5. A perusal of the result-cum-Detail Marks Card of the 8th
semester of the appellant's Degree course reveals that he had appeared in the
examinations of the 8th semester in May, 2004 and that he was declared to
have failed in the subject of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems.
6. Thus, the appellant appeared in the 8th semester examinations in
May, 2004 and failed in the subject of Artificial Intelligence and Expert
Systems. It is not disputed that after May 2004 the appellant did not avail
any reappear chance and that only after a lapse of 15 years did he awake
from his slumber and requested the university for the grant of an extra
chance to clear the subject in which he had failed way back in May, 2004.
In these facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant's
prayer was highly belated.
7. The reliance of the appellant on Rule 12 of General Rules for
Examinations, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana, is also
misconceived. The said Rule reads as under:-
"The Vice-Chancellor may consider the request of
candidates for allowing an extra chance for clearing
compartment/re-appear in lieu of any chance which he/she
might have missed on account of participation in sports on
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:109379-DB
2023:PHHC:101213-DB
behalf of the University, revision of result after re-evaluation,
delay in the declaration of result due to registration, awards,
decision of unfair means case etc. due to no fault of the
candidate."
8. The case of the appellant is not covered under any of the
eventualities caused under the afore quoted Rule.
9. In the light of the above, the learned Single Judge is found to
have aptly considered the matter in the right perspective. There is no
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting any
interference.
10. Dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
10.08.2023
Komal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:109379-DB
4 of 4
