Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra Vs. Neha Rani - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153080
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantKurukshetra University Kurukshetra
RespondentNeha Rani
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh letters patent appeal no.1001 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 30.06.2014 kurukshetra university, kurukshetra …..appellant versus neha rani .....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice sanjay kishan kaul,chief justice hon’ble mr.justice ajay tewari present: mr.rajinder singh rana, advocate for the appellant .sanjay kishan kaul, chief justice (oral).cm-2288-2014: leave is granted to place on record annexure a-1 and the application is allowed. lpa-1001-2014: the appellant-university seeks to assail the impugned order of the learned single judge dated 22.5.2014 disposing of the writ petition filed by the original petitioner. the limited grievance made by the original petitioner was that the b.a.result of the petitioner for part-i examination held in april, 2013 had not been declared. it appears that the original 10+2 marks-sheet had not been deposited with the university which was the cause for the same. the admitted position before the learned single judge and before us is that the original certificate since stands deposited and is in order chand parkash 2014.06.30 15:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document lpa-1001-2014 - 2 - and if that had been made available there was no impediment in the way of the original petitioner. the only issue which is sought to be raised before us, surprisingly so, is that the roll number on the basis of which the original petitioner appeared for the examination of the university is not valid because the original roll number was actually never released to the original petitioner. the original petitioner has placed on record as annexure p/2 the roll number on the basis of which she appeared in the examination. it is not disputed that such a roll number was assigned to the original petitioner. it has not been explained as to how this roll number contains the relevant seals and the original petitioner was even permitted to take the examination. it does appear to us that at the relevant time, given the exigency, somebody in the department did issue a roll number to the original petitioner and now the same is sought to be doubted on the ground that one other original roll number was detained by the university. we are of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference for the reason that the eligibility of the original petitioner to take the examination is not in doubt. dismissed. ( sanjay kishan kaul ) chief justice3006.2014 ( ajay tewari ) parkash* judge chand parkash 2014.06.30 15:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1001 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 30.06.2014 Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra …..Appellant versus Neha Rani .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the appellant .SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral).CM-2288-2014: Leave is granted to place on record Annexure A-1 and the application is allowed.

LPA-1001-2014: The appellant-University seeks to assail the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 22.5.2014 disposing of the writ petition filed by the original petitioner.

The limited grievance made by the original petitioner was that the B.A.result of the petitioner for Part-I examination held in April, 2013 had not been declared.

It appears that the original 10+2 marks-sheet had not been deposited with the University which was the cause for the same.

The admitted position before the learned single Judge and before us is that the original certificate since stands deposited and is in order Chand Parkash 2014.06.30 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1001-2014 - 2 - and if that had been made available there was no impediment in the way of the original petitioner.

The only issue which is sought to be raised before us, surprisingly so, is that the roll number on the basis of which the original petitioner appeared for the examination of the University is not valid because the original roll number was actually never released to the original petitioner.

The original petitioner has placed on record as Annexure P/2 the roll number on the basis of which she appeared in the examination.

It is not disputed that such a roll number was assigned to the original petitioner.

It has not been explained as to how this roll number contains the relevant seals and the original petitioner was even permitted to take the examination.

It does appear to us that at the relevant time, given the exigency, somebody in the department did issue a roll number to the original petitioner and now the same is sought to be doubted on the ground that one other original roll number was detained by the University.

We are of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference for the reason that the eligibility of the original petitioner to take the examination is not in doubt.

Dismissed.

( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE3006.2014 ( AJAY TEWARI ) parkash* JUDGE Chand Parkash 2014.06.30 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document