Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Kumar vs Janki Ji College Of Education And Ors on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009009
RSA-9771-2018(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-9771-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.01.2025
Manish Kumar
...... Appellant
Versus
Janki Ji College of Education and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
***
Present : Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
CM-18958-C-2018
Application for exempting the applicant-appellant from filing
certified copies of the impugned judgments and decree dated 29.04.2014 and
14.05.2018, is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions and the
same are taken on record.
C.M.No.18959-C-2018
Prayer in the present application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, is for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the
accompanying appeal.
Heard.
For the reasons, mentioned in the application which is duly
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 25 days in
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009009
filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
RSA-9771-2018
This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree
dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and
decree dated 29.04.2014, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sub Division, Bilaspur (Yamuna Nagar) vide which the suit for
mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred
to as per their original status.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the
defendants to give admission to the plaintiff in D.Ed. Second Year course for
the Session 2010-2011; to permit him to attend classes, take examinations to
be held in June, 2011 and also to declare his result thereafter.
4. The plaintiff had taken admission in D.Ed. two years course in
Janki Ji College of Education (defendant No.1) in the academic Session
2009-2010. He cleared the first year D.Ed. course by securing 80% marks in
June, 2010. As per the case of the plaintiff, admission for the Second Year of
D.Ed. course was to be taken in August, 2010. However, as the mother of the
plaintiff was suffering from severe ailments on account of heart surgery
which had taken place at Delhi in 2009, the plaintiff could not attend his
classes. He had been attending to his ailing mother as a result of which he
could not take admission in the Second Year of D.Ed. course. The plaintiff
approached defendant No.1 in 3rd week of September, 2010 to seek admission
but admission was refused and a sum of Rs.18,000/- on account of absence
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009009
and late fee was demanded. In the last week of November, 2011, the plaintiff
was told that his name had been removed from the rolls. The plaintiff then
approached defendant No.2 but was told that no such information was
received. The plaintiff again approached defendant No.1 but was simply
turned off.
5. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The basic stand taken
was that after having passed the First year examination of D.Ed. course, the
second year session had started in August, 2010 but the plaintiff remained
absent. He was telephonically informed and a communication dated
20.09.2010 was also issued. On 01.11.2010, again a communication was
issued calling upon the plaintiff to attend his classes and in case of failure to
do so, his admission would be cancelled. Examination form for the second
year of D.Ed. course was to be sent in November, 2010 on account of which
a communication dated 23.11.2010 was issued to the Kurukshetra University
informing about the absence of the plaintiff and that his admission had been
cancelled. Reliance was placed upon the rules as per which 85% attendance
which after condonation came to 75% was required, to be eligible to appear
in the examination. Demand of late fee etc. was denied.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issue were
framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction
as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present
suit ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009009
present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present
suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD
6. Whether suit is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of
necessary parties ?
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean
hands ? OPD
8. Relief.
7. Parties led their respective evidence.
8. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the
appeal filed against the said decision was also dismissed, leading to the filing
of the present regular second appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff
could not seek admission and attend classes in the second year of D.Ed.
course on account of ill health of his mother but the said fact was not
considered by the defendants. Learned counsel has referred to the judgments
passed by the Courts below and has submitted that the same are not
sustainable.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the plaintiff but find the same to be devoid of merit.
12. Admittedly, the plaintiff sought admission in the Ist Year of
D.Ed. Course for the Session 2009-2010. He cleared the first year
examination in 2010 after which he was to seek admission in the Second Year
Course in August, 2010. He, however, failed to do so. No classes were
attended. The ground that the mother of the plaintiff having fallen ill was not
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009009
proved because no evidence worth its name was led to prove the same. The
communications referred to by the plaintiff were also not placed on record.
In fact, he did not lead any evidence worth its name to prove the case set up
by him.
13. On the contrary, the defendants led ample oral and documentary
evidence to prove that the plaintiff had not approached them for admission
and no communication had been issued. They were also able to prove that
the defendants had issued communications (Ex.D1 to Ex.D4) to the plaintiff
and to the University, calling upon the plaintiff to attend classes, failing
which admission would be cancelled. In fact, communication dated
11.11.2010 (Ex.D1) was duly received by the plaintiff as was admitted by
him in the cross-examination while appearing as PW1. This communication
clearly stated that the name of the plaintiff would be struck off from the
attendance register if within two days, he failed to appear and deposit the
requisite fee. The suit was instituted on 23.12.2010 after more than a month
from the issuance of the said communication Ex.D1.
14. The defendants were also able to prove that in terms of the
guidelines Ex.D5, 85% of the total attendance was required to appear in the
examination and a maximum of 5% could be condoned by the head of the
institution and 5% could be condoned in cases of extreme illness or
exceptional circumstances, by the Director Secondary Education, Haryana.
Meaning thereby, that where attendance was less than 75%, a student would
not be eligible to appear in the examination. The defendants were, therefore,
successful in proving that the plaintiff had no case. I do not find any
illegality in the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below,
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009009
warranting interference in second appeal.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not
find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
21.01.2025 (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
