SUNITA THEREJA ORDER Vs. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS. Sunita Theraja through this writ petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the re-evaluation result of L. L. B. Vl-Semester of the petitioner expeditiously and further direction to provisionally admit the petitioner to the course of Master in Law (1st year) at her own risk and responsibility subject to her passing the L. L. B. Examination. She further seeks quashing of clause (D) of the Prospectus for admission to the Session 1992-93 in Master of Law's course, being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE brief resume' of facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner appeared in VI Semester in LL. B. in May, 1992, the result of which was declared on August 20,1992. The petitioner was given 'reappear' in paper No. 2 i. e. pleadings, draftings and conveyancing, having secured 36% marks out of 100 as against the minimum prescribed 45 marks. The petitioner had shown exceptional brilliance in other subjects as under:- The petitioner was expecting good marks in 2nd paper also. Under these circumstances she applied for detailed marks and got the same on 7-9-1992. Thereafter on 8-91992, she applied for re-evaluation of the 2nd paper. In the meantime, before the declaration of the result, the petitioner applied for admission to LL. M. Part-I Class in the Punjab University (Department of Laws) from general category, but after the declaration of her LL. B. VI-Semester result she had become ineligible for seeking admission to LL. M. Class (1st year ). The result of the re-evaluation of 2nd paper was not declared till the filing of this writ petition. Therefore she has approached this Court for issuing direction to the respondents to. declare the result of the re-evaluation of 2nd paper promptly in order to save one year loss in her studies. She also maintained having made representation on 8-9-1992 (Annexure P-3) to the respondents but on getting no response she had resorted to filing this writ petition.

(3.) IT is further averred in the writ petition that sometime a student who has done exceptionally well in the examination gets reappear in certain paper, but on re-evaluation secures high marks in that paper. She has given, the example of one Sarbjit Singh in this regard in order to persuade the Court that the fault of the Examiner in evaluation of the paper should not visit the student adversely to the extent of wasting her one year in studies. It is further averred that late admission is not barred as there is a provision in clause (D) for admission to students whose results are revised as a consequence of re-evaluation, but she challenges the three conditions in Clause (D) qua the availability of seat; the merit of the candidates within first 25% of the applicants admitted to the open category and making request for late admission before the last date, with the approval of the Vice-Chancetlor on the ground that these three conditions are totally arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. She further maintains that the re-evaluation of result would relate back to the original result and thus the same should have effect on the original result. If that is so then the student should not suffer for the delay on the part of the respondents. It is also maintained that the second, conditioner securing higher merit than 25%. of the applicants admitted in the. open category is also arbitrary as a candidate, is eligible for admission if he clears the LL. B, Examination. It is further maintained that a candidate who has earlier: failed in the test is not sure whether he will clear in that paper in the retevaluation and; thus before the re-evaluation of result is received, he/she cannot apply for late admission within stipulated date with the prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor.