Enter College / University / City name:

Home > Haryana > Universities > Kurukshetra > Kurukshetra University


Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana


Contact


Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana
Kurukshetra (District Kurukshetra)
Haryana, India
Pin Code : 136119


Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana is a University recognised by UGC. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana was established on / in 1956.


Kurukshetra University is situated in Kurukshetra of Haryana state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Kurukshetra comes under Kurukshetra Tehsil, Kurukshetra District.

Fax # of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana is +91-1744-238277, 238035.

Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana are 95713-66580, 95713-66678, 95713-67026, 95713-67026, 95713-68223, 95714-43083.

email ID(s) is Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra Haryana

Website of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana is www.kukinfo.com, www.kuk.ac.in.

Vice Chancellor : Dr DDS Sandhu, Prof. R.P. Hooda Tel : 01744238039 (O) 238021 (R).

Registrar : Dr Youdh Bir Singh, Surinder Deswal 01744 238026 (O)238999 (R).


Contact Details of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana are : Website : www.kuk.edu.tripod.com
EPABX : 238410, 238196
Librarian : Tel : 1744-238367, 222164
University College, Principal Dr KS Antil
email: kuru@doe.ernet.in, rdmehla@rediffmail.com, kuk@hry.nic.in, pharmacy.kuk@rediffmail.com

Telephone: +91-1744-238026, 238999, 238367, 238410, 238196
Maninder Kumar Maudgil (Manager Printing Section) Telephone: +91-1744-38192(O) 235406 (R) 38277 (Fax) 94162-59822

SH D.K.GUPTA (Superintendent DDE) Res Telephone: +91-1744-21931, Office Telephone: +91-1744-38410 EXTN 2591
MR C.A.SHARMA,ZEDCA,CHD, Telephone: +91-172-667952 (R)
MR BHALE RAM (PANDIT JI), NOW IN ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH (EARLIER IN EXAM BRANCH) Tel 77908 Telephone: +91-1744-34908 (NEW)
Rajidner ji, PA to Registrar, KUK 238026
DR PARDEEP KUMAR SACHDEVA S/O DR D.R.SACHDEVA, HEAD, DEPT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 98121-69260 (REF DR RAKESH, DR KK PURI, MR MANISH PURI)
Telephone: +91-1744-21715. MR SRINIVAS IN PUBLIC ADMN DEPT OFFICE, EXTN 2586 DCC EXTN 2592
Librarian : Tel : 1744-238367, 222164

Established by the State Legislature Act XII of 1956

Examination Quick Action Cell
This is a quick action cell for the convenience of centre suprintendents and principals. Please contact the following numbers.
Mr. Babu Ram Chaudhary - 93541 81602
Mr. T.C. Goel - 93541 81630

Prof OP Gahlawat, Convenor, B.Ed. Admission 2012

Dr. K. L. Tuteja
Director
(O): 01744-238472
Fax: 01744-238277

Dr. Anil Vohra
Professor
(O): 01744-238410 Extn. 2113
(M) :09835000388
vohras@sanchar.in

Prof. R.S. Yadav
(O): 01744-238472
(M): 09896088655
Fax: 01744-238277
rsyadavpolsc@yahoo.co.in



Courses

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana runs course(s) in Education, Business Management, Law stream(s).
Master of Tourism Management (MTM), Master of Hotel Management (MHM), Master of Internation Business (MIB), Master of Marketing Technology (MMT), Master of Finance And Control (MFC), Master of Retailing And Logistics Management (MRLM), LL.B (3 year) Professional Morning And Evening, LL.M (2 year), B.Ed.


Departments
* Department of English - Established in 1961.
* Department of Foreign Languages - Established in 1961.
* Department of Punjabi.
* Department of Hindi.
* Department of Library and Information Science - Established in 1969
* Department of Commerce - Established in 1971.
* Department of Management.
* Department of Tourism and Hotel Management.
* Department of Education.
* Department of Physical Education.
* Department of Sanskrit, Pali & Prakrit.
* Department of Philosophy.
* Department of Music.
* Department of Fine Arts.
* Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture & Archaeology,
* Department of Law.
* Department of Biochemistry.
* Department of Botany.
* Department of Microbiology.
* Department of Biotechnology.
* Department of Zoology.
* Department of Computer science and Applications.
* Department of Electronic Science.
* Department of Geography.
* Department of Geology.
* Department of Geophysics.
* Department of Mathematics.
* Department of Statistics and OR.
* Department of Political Science.
* Department of Public Administration.
* Department of History.
* Department of Economics.
* Department of Psychology.
* Department of Social Work.

Profile of Kurukshetra University

Introduction
The Kurukshetra University was established in 1956 by the first President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. It is located in the historic and holy city of Kurukshetra, where the legendary battle of Mahabharata was fought. The University is situated on the western bank of the Brahm Sarover and extends to about 400 acres. It is an important educational institute offering educational and research programs in a variety of fields, with a desire to ingrain a precious set of human values within its students.

Other Info:
Since the time it was established, the Kurukshetra University is acknowledged as one of the most sacred and comprehensive seats of learning in the country. It has lived up to its reputation of being one of the finest educational institutes in the country. When it was first established, it used to have a department for Sanskrit, but today there are multi faculties in the University and all of them are famous for their learned faculty members. In about six decades, the Kurukshetra University has truly carved a niche for itself in the arena of sustained educational and research development.

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra was established in 1956 in Kurukshetra in Haryana India, situated 160 km from Delhi, and member of Association of Commonwealth Universities[1]Department of Sanskrit was the first and the only department in university when it was inaugurated by India's first President Dr.Rajendra Prasad. It's campus is spread over 400 acres.

Profile of University
The Kurukshetra University was established in 1956 as a unitary residential University and its foundation stone was laid by late Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India. Located in the holy city of Kurukshetra, land of the historical battle of 'Mahabharata' and the great message of Bhagwad Gita, its campus is situated on the western bank of Brahm Sarover (the holy tank) and extends over an area of over 400 acres. Starting with only the Department of Sanskrit, it has grown into a multi-faculty University as one of the premier centres for advanced study and research in the region.

Information
Located in Kurukshetra, the land of the Bhagwadgita Kurukshetra University is a premier institute of higher learning in India. It is spread over 400 acres of land on the south bank of the holy Brahmsarovar. Its foundation stone was laid on 11 January 1957 by Bharatratna Dr.Rajendra Prasad, the first President of the Indian Republic. Since then it has aimed at pursuing excellence in teaching and research in science, technology, humanities, social sciences, performing arts and sports.

Today, Kurukshetra University is offering world-class education to students from throughout India and other countries by providing a learning experience designed to develop intellectual abilities, as well as social, moral and ethical values. The University is equipping its students with the skills, insights, attitudes and practical experience that will enable them to become discerning citizens.

The Universitys programs combine the enduring value of a liberal arts education with the skills and experience offered by professional departments. The University has 445 teaching faculty members. The University also has 457 affiliated colleges and institutes in the Districts of Ambala, Panipat, Kaithal, Yamuna Nagar, Hisar, Fatehabad, Jind, Karnal, Sirsa, Kurukshetra and Panchkula.

The Campus of the University has often been rated as one of the most beautiful campuses in India. It resembles a large, self-contained village with lecture theatres, seminar rooms, accommodation, cafeterias, canteens, shops and sports facilities, libraries and laboratories. The most remarkable feature of the campus is the seamless interconnection of nature and the built environment. There are a number of lush green gardens, water fountains and side walks which provide an ideal environment on the campus for study and leisure.

Library
Rameshwar Dass Mehla
Chief Librarian
BRANCH PROFILE
The University Library is centrally located and is an air conditioned three storey building having 49,230 sq. feet plinth area and its extension as Golden Jubilee Reading Hall having plinth area of 57,500 sq. feet is also under progress. It has seating capacity of 470 users at a time and remains open on 360 days from 9.00 a.m. to 12.00 midnight. The University Library has a rich collection of 339817 volumes in the stream of Sciences, Management, Social Science, Commerce and Humanities too. The Library ERNET Centre with 150 computers for the faculty members, students and Research Scholars has an internet connectivity of 10 mbps leased line. Library has also provided internet connectivity to almost all the teaching and non-teaching Departments, Hostels and the entire Campus through WI FI internet connection. In addition to this, under U.G.C.-INFONET E-Journals consortium library provides an access to 8453 scholarly journals. The Library has automated its in house activities such as library membership, circulation of documents, holdings of periodicals, catalogue as Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC).

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Kurukshetra University

KU launches mobile app for distance education students (Kurukshetra University)
News: 2nd October, 2016
KU launches mobile app for distance education students


KU prays for alumnus Jagjit Singhs recovery (News)
Protesting students damage VC office gate (News)
MTM and MHM MMT etc (Admission Notice)
M Ed Courses (Admission Notice)
MBA LLM and MSc Course etc (Admission Notice)
MBA etc (Admission Notice)
B Sc Medical etc (Admission Notice)
Tender Notice for CCTV (Advertisement)
Required Medical Officers (Job Vacancy)
Tender Notice (Advertisement)
Students ne ki Lathi se Lecturer ki Pitai (News)
Ph D On Regular Basis (Admission Notice)
Acting Registrar Lands KU in Soap (News)
Course for the Directorate and Distance Education (Advertisement)
Two more for held KU campus Snatchings (News)
Tender ()
Tender Notice ()
80 Securityman ()
MA M Sc and Other Courses (Admission Notice)
Post of Clerk (Job Vacancy)
Dewang Mehta Award for VC (News)
Varsity gives convict a second chance (News)
MA in Defence and Strategic Studies (Admission Notice)
Important Notification ()
Corrigendum ()
Direct Admission in B Ed (Admission Notice)
BA and MSc Mass Communication (Admission Notice)
Integrated Courses (Admission Notice)
MBA Admission (Admission Notice)
College Lecturers to be research Guides (News)
KU students protest from classrooms (News)
kurukshetra varsity under scanner (News)
Exam today KU key not sent (News)
KU appoint judges for youth festivels (News)
KU teaching dept lifts overall trophy (News)
Kurukshetra vivi Comulsary English hi hai Electic English (News)
KU murder family rues delay in arrests (News)
KU Profs demand new pay scales boycott classes (News)
KU teachers quite additional Responsibilities (News)
KU urged to set up chair in Jagjits name (News)
No pact reached with KU Teachers (News)
KU to Commerce annual audit of syllabi (News)
KU teachers call off stir (News)
Keyu ki team bani vijeta (News)
B Ed Courses (Admission Notice)
Media Courses (Admission Notice)
KUs civil training centre fails to deliver (News)
Gen Sandhu takes over as KU VC (News)
KU wallo Khetri yuva mohatsav da ailan (News)
On Academic High Ground KU (News)
KUs Rs 1 cr approx WiFi system fails to work (News)
KU appoints agency for monitoring website (News)
VCs controversial OSD relieved (News)
Photograph of Girl student instead of Boy (News)
KU Proffessors to boycott exam duty (News)
Delayed KU results put 45000 students in a fix (News)
KU to make I cards mandotory in campus (News)
Aggarwal sammelan ne University wich Chair stahpit karan di mang kiti (News)
Student shot dead on KU Campus (News)
Murder on KU Campus 7 booked (News)
MTM MHM MIB and LLM etc (Admission Notice)
BEd Programmes (Admission Notice)
PhD Courses (Admission Notice)
Hostellers pay 1K for playing music (News)
Assistant Proffessor (Job Vacancy)
Row over Principals appointment in KU (News)
Mistakes in result irk KU Students (News)
KU budget Rs 257cr deficit Rs 52cr (News)
Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectometer (Tender)
Supply and Installation of Furniture (Tender)
Sports Equipments and Hosiery Goods (Tender)
Assistant Registrar (Job Vacancy)
Yada de jarokhe cho (News)
Outsider create panic in varsity (News)
Change in admission of BEd (Corrigendum)
Assistant Proffessor on Contract Basis (Job Vacancy)
MBA and MCA Course (Admission Notice)
BA LLB MBA and BIHBM etc (Admission Notice)
MPhill Course (Admission Notice)
BEd Course (Admission Notice)
M Pharmacy Course (Admission Notice)
BA BCom MA and MCom etc (Admission Notice)
Non teaching staff at KU suspend work (News)
Construction of Buildings for Research Project (Tender)
Assistant Professor required (Job Vacancy)
Press Release (Advertisement)
KU to make CM Dr Hooda for showing keen interest in law (Job Vacancy)
KU to make CM Dr Hooda for showing keen interest in law (News)
KU teachers to continue agitation (News)
KU red faced over faulty question paper (News)
Submission of Examination Forms by Private Candidates (Entrance Test)
Auction Notice for old Tractor in good running condition (Advertisement)
Automatic Grinding and Polishing Machine (Tender)
Sastra ki Hadse Main mout (News)
Orientation Programme on biomedical science (News)
Boy enters KU girls hostel Students blame lack of security (News)
Upset over fathers death student commits suicide (News)
Clerk,Store keeper and Peon etc (Job Vacancy)
Scientist karyasheli manvta ko sudrid banati hai (News)
Checks in KU hostels ahead of prez visit (News)
3000 Students of self finance courses to miss convocation (News)
Parivertan ka sandeshvahak bane yuva (News)
Khatra Nahi Tla kurukshetra university par (News)
Microwave Digester and Gas Chromatography (Tender)
BA Programme in Part one.two etc (Admission Notice)
Attention Sc St,Physically and Visually Handicapped Candidates (Corrigendum)
Annual Convocation 2012 (Convocation)
KU to confer DLitt on Mauritius PM (News)
Haryana ke CM ko manad upadhi (News)
Boy appears in exam in place of girl caught (News)
50 Kurukshetra varsity Students to visit Pak (News)
BTech 3rd semester Paper ELE 201E (Entrance Test)
Providing and Erection of Climbing Wall (Tender)
KU registrar in Contempt loop (News)
Supply of Public health material (Tender)
Students demand overhaul of KU admission process (News)
Kurukshetra University wich Baba Banda Bahadar Chair sthapat karn lai Haryana Sarkar da swagat (News)
Steel Almirah size above footing made with 20 gauge (Tender)
BA,BCom and Certificate Courses (Admission Notice)
Students frown over movie scenes in Ku film fest (News)
Armed youths leave 3 Students injured in KU (News)
Indecent movie scenes in KU Panel to submit report (News)
Grant Kharach nahi kar pai KU (News)
Shodh priyojnao par khra nahi utri KU (News)
Maplitho Paper and Handmade Paper etc (Tender)
KU Students booked for teasing thai girl (News)
Cag report ne uthaya KU ki laparwahi se parda (News)
Rules ko thenga,Staff par meharbani (News)
KU boys caught drinking in hostel (News)
KUs lack of planning leaves student in lurch (News)
MMTM and BHM Courses etc (Admission Notice)
KUs understaffed exam branch makes students suffer (News)
BEd Course 2012 (Counselling)
Five year integrated courses etc (Admission Notice)
Sports Equipments and Hosiery Goods (Tender)
Design and Development of Rain water harvesting and Artificial Recharge (Tender)
Ladki chedne se roka toh Student ki chaku mar hatya (News)
Engg Student killed for taking on eveteasers (News)
Teaching Blocks and Residential Building etc (Tender)
Caught cheating, 3 youths assault teacher (News)
BA, MA and MSc Cousrse etc (Admission Notice)
MA, MSC and MCA Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Asstt Professor on Contractual basis (Job Vacancy)
BA and MSc Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Supply and Installations of CCTV system (Tender)
BA and MSc Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Yuva varg ki shakti ko sahi disha dene ki jarurat (News)
Convocation mokke 1550 Students nu Degrees vandiya (News)
BIHBM Course etc (Admission Notice)
Jado Paper Chapna hi bhul gai University (News)
Professor arrested for firing at crowd after accident (News)
Joint BEd Course 2012 (Admission Notice)
Five year MBA Integrated Course 2012 (Admission Notice)
Suplly of Answer Sheets (Tender)
Online Counselling for BEd (Counselling)
MTech Course 2012 (Admission Notice)
Extension of Haryana Museum (Tender)
MA, MSc and MCom Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Supply of Furniture articles (Tender)
B Pharmacy through LEET 2012 (Admission Notice)
Ba, BCom, MSc and MBA Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Const of Hostel for OBC girls (Tender)
BSc and MSc Courses (Admission Notice)
Commissioning of 100 KVA Diesel Generator (Tender)
Automatic Chapatti Making Machine and Dough Kneading Machine (Tender)
BTech in Printing and Graphics etc (Admission Notice)
Centralised Online Bed admission (Admission Notice)
Asstt Professor on contract basis (Job Vacancy)
Teaching and Non teaching positions (Job Vacancy)
MA, BPEd and MPEd Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Various UG and PG Courses (Admission Notice)
Homoeopathic Doctor, COE, Land Scape Officer and Librarian etc (Job Vacancy)
M Pharmacy Course (Admission Notice)
M Phil Course (Admission Notice)
Various types of Equipments (Tender)
Designing, providing and fixing Murals etc (Tender)
BCA 4 th semester me 1163 pass (News)
Players ne shuru kiya signature abhiyan (News)
KU ke 7 karamchari sewanivrit (News)
College me lagaya Blood donate camp (News)
Supply of Answer Sheets (Tender)
BEd Course (Counselling)
Dipika Gupta ne rachi history (News)
Program me 9 Students ne hasil kiye Gold Madel (News)
BEd Course (Counselling)
PhD Course 2012 (Admission Notice)
Inter College Championship par GMM ka kabja (News)
Students ne Chancellor ko saunpa gyapan, narebaji ki (News)
Maths me paye 100 me 100 marks (News)
University campus me chunavi mahol garmaya (News)
1986 tak jeevit Indira Gandhi (News)
Gussaye Students ne kiya pardarshan (News)
PGDCA me 542 Students pass (News)
Zonal youth fest ki teyario ka liya jayja (News)
Dalit Mukti ki virasat Books ko mila puraskaar (News)
Commerce se jeevan ka sampurn parivartan sambhav (News)
Const of Library (Tender)
Festival of Culture begins at KU (News)
M Ed Course (Admission Notice)
B Ed Course 2012 (Admission Notice)
Junior Engineer and Tabla Player etc (Job Vacancy)
KU Lecturers may have dark Diwali (News)
MA, MSc, MBA and MCA Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Testing of Sound proof DG set (Tender)
Sevanivrit employes ko di vidai (News)
KU me CR college ka jalwa (News)
KU ne ghoshit kiye exam results (News)
gymnastics team ka hua selection (News)
gymnastic me khiladiyo ne dikhai pratibha (News)
KU Students ka lia Computer test (News)
KU me 7 Professor and adhikari sevanivrit (News)
12,284 Students ne dia NET ka exam (News)
Parmeshwar Singh me kalakaro ne dikhai pratibha (News)
Lok pradhan ki dikhi jhalak (News)
Hasya kalakar ajaad sammanit (News)
Ragini pratoyogita band hone par bhadke students (News)
Govt College ne jeeti hockey Championship (News)
Kushti pratiyogfita aaj se (News)
Refresher Course in KU (News)
Palak first in KU (News)
21 days program in KU (News)
Haryanvi Dharohar ke kayal huye Pakistan (News)
Santosh first in 200 metres running program (News)
District ki badhali ke liye CM jimmedar (News)
Manjeet ne jeeta Boxing me Gold (News)
KU gaer shikshak karamchari bhadke (News)
Exams ka time badla (News)
KU ne ghoshit kiye exams ke results (News)
Kuntiya ne kiya VC office ka ghirav (News)
Padotari par lagi mohar (News)
Gyan ka parkash failaya jagadguru Brahmanand Saraswati ne (News)
Students ne liya boxing pratiyogita me hissa (News)
padai ke dabav me kiya tha suicide (News)
Employes ne Chancellor ko saupa maang pattar (News)
Hockey Championship me KU ki team vijayi (News)
Sakaratmak soch se hi safal netritav (News)
Stadium ke sath hi tut jayengi khiladiyo ki bhavnaye (News)
Shikshko ko diye sujhav (News)
Sangeet ke shetar me aye kai utaar chadav, Chancellor (News)
KU me Students ne kiya podharopan (News)
All India Championship aaj (News)
Result of 2 nd semester declared (News)
KU ne ghoshit kiya exam result (News)
Arya College se fax se mangana pada paper (News)
Galat adress par bheji Students ki marksheet (News)
Pipe line leakage bna preshani ka sabab (News)
Notice against PM and CM to DC (News)
KU Principal ne Student ko peeta (News)
Students ne paper radd karvane ko lekar ki narebaji (News)
History ko padhne ke liye sankirn soch dur rakhe (News)
Purane syllabus ka question paper thamaya (News)
Shiksha ke shetar me Global pratiyogi daur (News)
3 Hostels me chappe, 1 Student ka room radd (News)
B Ed me late fees ke sath admission 31 tak (News)
KU quarter final me pahuncha (News)
1964 Students gives MD exam for 675 seats (News)
Ranbir Hostel me chappa (News)
KU me Hockey Championship ka agaaz (News)
KU Hostels me chappemari (News)
Vidhut, Parul best Gymnastics ghoshit (News)
Registrar nivas par Students ka pardarshan (News)
KU ke Student bhadke (News)
Hostel Students ne fashion show me bikhere jalve (News)
BBA me Arya College ki 2 Students top 15 me (News)
Sandhu 2015 tak KU ke Chancellor bane rahenge (News)
KU me Subhash Chandar Boss samarak banane ka agreh (News)
Mahila jagrukta abhiyan chalaya (News)
Model and Pardarshni ka avlokan kiya (News)
MCom ke 4 th semester ka result ghoshit (News)
Khelkud pratiyogita me College ka shaandar pardarshan (News)
Workshop me Students ne paridhan kiye design (News)
Kushti Program me Jaat College ne kiya mahatavpurn yogdan (News)
Ashish ko mila Best Student Council samman (News)
refresher Course in KU (News)
Different Computer Course in KU (News)
Dr Rajender Parsad ki pratima par kiye sharadhasuman arpit (News)
Handicapped ko dya nahi, samman chahiye (News)
KU ke Students ne ki fresher party ka ayojan (News)
Hockey me KU ki dusri jeet (News)
Javlant samajik muddo par chintan karne ka aahvan (News)
MSc Math me 128 Students paas (News)
KU ne ghoshit kiya examination result (News)
Supply of strenth Equipments (Tender)
Man wanted in KU murder arrested (News)
Supply of Lights Fixtures (Tender)
Univ suspends professor for sexually harassing girls (News)
Goa ke kalakaro ne KU me machaya dhamal (News)
Carrer Guidence Program upto 25 (News)
Symposium on the Anti ragging measures (Profile)
Manual Counselling B Ed Admission 2012 (Counselling)
Case against student for mark sheet tampering (News)
BA, BCom, MA and MSc Courses etc (Admission Notice)
KU ke campus se gehne chori (News)
KU team me chaya kanoh ka pardeep (News)
Mool sirdhant ki practical training di (News)
Sanvad ka sakshat madhyam hai sangeet, Ashok (News)
Samaj me sudhar lane ka samarth hai geeto me, Mahasingh (News)
Naukayan program me KU bna upvijeta (News)
Lecturer Program in Kurukshetra University (News)
KU ne padonat kiye 32 sahayak (News)
KU employe Mamta Sharma ko Shradhanjili (News)
Kuntia karamchari bhadke (News)
Dr DDS Sandhu awarded with National Education leadership award (News)
MA manovigyan ki exam date me badlav (News)
Students ne sikhe Kitchen Gas bachav ke gur (News)
Abhinay me samvednao ka hona jaruri, Rathor (News)
Lecture Program in KU (News)
Special Lecture on Urd ka Haryana se Rishta (News)
Mess karmiyo ne University parshasan ko kosa (News)
PU Patiala ne Nagpur ko haraya (News)
Favouritism in appointments lands KU under high court lens (News)
KU gaer shikshak karamchari bhadke (News)
KU me theke par lage employees sadko par utre (News)
5 me se 2 ke beech hogi kante ki takkar (News)
Kalakar me hamesha kuch naya karne ki lalak jaruri, Lathar (News)
KU gaer shikshak employees ki hadtal jari (News)
Examination branch me record se chedchad (News)
Galtiyo ka pulinda bnakar bhej di DMC (News)
KU Hostels me punn, auchak chappe (News)
Gaer shikshako ka dharna jari (News)
Punjabi upnayas ki mukhya parvaktiyo par diya bhashan (News)
Supply of Public Health material (Tender)
Kayaking me KU vijeta (News)
Kuttiya employees ka andolan tez (News)
KU me Sports week shuru (News)
Kadi mehnat and bujurgo ka ashirwad safalta ka mulmantar, Geeta (News)
Vyaktitav shelly ko uchtam banane ke sujhav diye (News)
Tool down hadtal shuru (News)
KU ne Footbaal Championship jeeti (News)
Reena ne jeeta swarn padak (News)
Science ko jeevan ki hissa banaye Yuva (News)
Shikshak umeedvaro ne jari kiye chunavi ghoshna pattar (News)
Samaj me sudhaar lane ka samarthya hai, geeto me (News)
Vyavsayik prashanmanch safaltapurn sampan (News)
Prof Bura ko nideshak ka atirikt karyabhar saunpa (News)
Sampurn chatha vetan ayog dilaya jayega, Sandhu (News)
Students ke gut bhide, frar (News)
KU me Students ne Chancellor office ka kiya gherav (News)
KU gaer shikshak employees aur parshasan ke beech gatirodh samapit (News)
Const of Building (Tender)
Students who could not attend the PCP (Public Notice)
Peon posts (Public Notice)
Benefit transfer scheme for GATE and GPAT Students (Advertisement)
KU me sangoshti ayojit (News)
Samaj seva ko banaye jeevan ka chapter, Kaushal (News)
Vyaktitav shelly banti hai prerko se, Mohan (News)
KU ne ghoshit kiya exams resulyt (News)
Varshik samaroh me karvai pratiyogita (News)
Samantvadi dhanche par likhit itihas lekhan ki vistrit charcha ki (News)
Lecturers Cant equated with varsity faculty (News)
Students celebrated water day (News)
Changes in Statuates (News)
Big role of GD Program in Law fest (News)
Students ignite Statue of Chief Warden (News)
Abhijeet Mukherjee dharohar ko dekh huye gadhgadh (News)
Hariyanvi sanskriti ka ayina hai saang (News)
Pranab visit KU soon (News)
Gurupurav Diwas aaj (News)
Language se banaya ja sakta hai Vyaktitav (News)
Last date for submission of examination form (News)
9 Faculty members retired (News)
Automation in all Btech sem (News)
Student leader killed by bullet (News)
Lok kalah ke roop dikhenge dharohar me (News)
Dharam Sanskar samaroh (News)
Seminar on Baba Banda Singh Bahadur (News)
Memorandum to Educational MInister (News)
500 Students ko rakha hirasat me (News)
Examination start (News)
VC ne liya dharohar 2 ki teyariyo ka jayza (News)
Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Chair sathapit (News)
Sahitya Sadhna of Mahadevi Verma (News)
Sports Coach (Job Vacancy)
Examination Notice of BA and BCom (Advertisement)
Dental Surgeon (Job Vacancy)
4 Writers Honored (News)
Legal Literacy seminar (News)
Jammu Students drown in Ganga (News)
Students ne kiya VC office ka gherav (News)
Workshop on Census (News)
Bhog of Shri Akhand Path Sahib (News)
KUTA ne teyar kiya Charter of Demand (News)
Cafeteria 2013 start (News)
Zehar and fracture se bachav ki jankari di (News)
KU girl Student commits suicide (News)
KU employees ne kiya jordar pardarshan (News)
eGovernance workshop by IT Department (News)
Alumni meet (News)
Seminar on Legal Literacy (News)
Kisan goshti me bataya pottasium ka mahatav (News)
Nidhi team first in group dance (News)
BTech Students drown in Ganga (News)
Students ne kiya pardarshan (News)
Blood donation camp (News)
Alumni meet (News)
Auction for Agriculture land (Advertisement)
Faculty Development Program (Admission Notice)
Public speaking compitition (News)
Dharna of Chancellor office (News)
KU Students survey disputes Bibipur village (News)
Dand vyavastha apnane par diya jor (News)
Painting Compitition (News)
MA lok parshasan me 138 utiran (News)
Supply of Furniture (Tender)
KU me shakha adhikshak retired (News)
Adhuri suchna dene par adhikari talab (News)
180 Students passed in PGDCA (News)
Refresher Course (Admission Notice)
621 Students cleared MA English (News)
KUTA members ne ki chancellor se mulakaat (News)
Mahila chatravaas me computer lab shuru (News)
Palak of Narwana first in MSc Physics (News)
Shooting me apaar sambhavnaye, Dalel (News)
Baar Baar dilase ke ilava kuch nahi mila (News)
Balaji ka jagrata and Bhandara lagaya (News)
Result of exams announced (News)
Member of Rahul Gandhi visit KU (News)
Arjun Hostel me chapamari (News)
Tension in HPU continues (News)
MBA and M Pharmacy (Admission Notice)
Supply of Public health material (Tender)
BTech, 7th semester result announced (News)
Controversy on Netball Championship (News)
Laying premix carpet (Tender)
Students ne lehraya parcham (News)
BA LLB Course (Admission Notice)
Master of Travel and Tourism Management (Admission Notice)
KURJ ke 2 anko ka lokarpan (News)
Online exam for BTech 3rd semester (News)
Kai shikshak conform toh kai padonat (News)
KU de VC di pardhangi heth Committee da gathan (News)
Committee for Higher Education and Exam system (News)
Colleges ki degrees KUK se hi milengi, Hukam Singh (News)
Meeting of KU non teaching employees association (News)
Upadhikshak ke padh par padonit karne ke adesh jari (News)
26 shodarthi PhD upadhi ke pattar ghoshit (News)
MA, MSc and MCom (Admission Notice)
BA and BSc courses (Admission Notice)
Employees ne ki narebaji (News)
Students sad for delay in examination result (News)
Search of UMC case start (News)
Readers and Lecturer (Job Vacancy)
LLB and LLM (Admission Notice)
Sports equipments (Tender)
28 students passed in life science (News)
Inauguration of refresher program (News)
Adhuri sucha dene par KU adhikari talab (News)
11 employees on bhukh hadtal (News)
MSc Physics result announced (News)
Discussion on RTE (News)
Students shouts for made UMC (News)
BTech paper leak (News)
Inauguration of student help camp (News)
Bhukh hadtal on Chancellor officer (News)
Amit Kumar and Manju shines for good result (News)
MBA Course (Admission Notice)
Students ne Library samaksh diya pardarshan (News)
1537 students clear UG compartment exam (News)
KU, ITDC design course for NRIs (News)
KU, ITDC design course for NRIs (News)
Asstt Professor M S Chauhan retired (News)
Caught cheating, youth stabs exam in charge (News)
Students ne lehraya parcham (News)
Adhikshak par hamle ka KUTA ne jataya virodh (News)
Subhash Sudha awarded (News)
BSc course (Counselling)
KU thekedar association ka gathan (News)
12060 students cleared BA (News)
Palak done top in MSc (News)
B Ed course (Admission Notice)
Asstt Professor on contract basis (Job Vacancy)
B Pharmacy through LEET (Admission Notice)
B Pharmacy through LEET (Admission Notice)
KU me hui kai padonanitiya (News)
Discussion on fundamentals of Sankara Vedanta (News)
977 students passed in BCA semester 6th (News)
Dr Shalini speaks on Womens right (News)
MSc Physics Entrance exam from 15th of July (Entrance Test)
PGDCA and MBA (Admission Notice)
Dr Pawan Sharma awarded with National Award (News)
1062 students gave BA and LLB exam (News)
1034 students cleared BBA (News)
End of Refresher course (News)
PG admissions ki jang shuru (News)
Budget rashi and nakdi award me ki vridhi (News)
Suspension of Rajvant Kaur suspend (News)
Students ko milenge puraskar (News)
Technical staff ko mila practical bhakta (News)
20 students selected for job (Vacancy)
8 students join BALLB counselling (Counselling)
Memmorandum to Vice Chancellor (News)
Archna done top in BFA (News)
Pardhan ko nilambhan ka koi adhikar nahi, Karn Singh Group (News)
KU strict against ragging (News)
Dr Krishan Chand Ralhan visit KU (News)
Certificate distributed to 41 students (News)
Manisha done top in BSc (News)
Data cell will soon available in KU (News)
28 students ko hostel me admission par pabandi (News)
6 professor retired (News)
Orientation Program (News)
Supply of wrestling mats (Tender)
Kick boxing compitition (News)
Humboldt Fellowship award to Dr Pawan (News)
Students met to Chancellor for demands (News)
End of Kick Boxing compitition (News)
PGDCA and MCA (Admission Notice)
BA and BCom (Admission Notice)
19 students participate in Self defence sports academy (News)
Students dharna for demands (News)
Promotions in faculties posts (News)
Sound proof DG set (Tender)
Creamwove paper (Tender)
BTech through LEET (Admission Notice)
Students join form blood drop, create world record (News)
M Phil course started (News)
Creating records with drop of blood (Profile)
Students dharna for demands (News)
SFI Kaithal submits memmorandum to VC (News)
Chancellor Dr DDS Sandhu message for students to complete dreams (News)
KUNTEA General body meeting (News)
Vacant seats will filled soon (News)
KU bans 28 girls from hostel for rule violation (News)
Lecture program (News)
Students dharna for demands (News)
Students dharna on University gate (News)
Students thrash security guards, vandalize campus (News)
Jantar Mantar pardarshan by students (News)
KU overall champion in sports compitition (News)
KU achieved second position in Maka Trophy (News)
MBA and M Tech admission date near to be closed (News)
End of Poshan week by Homescience department (News)
Hindi will best language of World, Ralhan (News)
KUNTEA hadtal from today (News)
Induction Program hekd (News)
Single Video system starts for students (News)
Students jaam of Rail Track (News)
Students paper misplace (News)
367 students passed LLM (News)
MA result announced (News)
Priyanka done top in MA English (News)
Seema done top in MA English (News)
Workshop on Haryana PR Officers (News)
Employees dharna against Chancellor office (News)
Workshop on Radio (News)
Students Gheraos VC Office for demands (News)
Samman Samaroh held (News)
KU psychologists study Karnals memory price (News)
Birthday of Tau Devilal celebrated (News)
Induction training program held (News)
Navneet Kaur shines in Lecture compitition (News)
Youth Fest Schedule held (News)
Supply of Dekstop computers (Tender)
Shaheed E Azam ki pratima par kiya malyaparn (News)
Ishu Gupta done top in MSc Computer (News)
KU declared BA and MA results (News)
Hunger strike of KU employees (News)
Union ko kamjor karne me lage adhikari (News)
Vaad Vivad program ka ayojan (News)
End of General Category employees (News)
Placement session started (News)
Students seminar on Human Development (News)
Ashima Gupta done top in University (News)
Shortage of Staff (News)
Meeting end in KU (News)
Chancellor ne mani employees ki adhiktar mange (News)
19 din baad KU parshasan ne li rahat (News)
Student meet program held (News)
KU Youth Fest kickstarts at Ambala (News)
Students enjoyed in Cultural fest (News)
Meeting end of Baljeet Singh Group (News)
Supply of result sheet (Tender)
Construction of Building (Tender)
M Tech student found unconcious in KU hostel (News)
Library Asstt (Job Vacancy)
KUNTEA election me parchar abhiyan joro par (News)
KUNTEA gave memmorandum to chancellor (News)
Dr DDS Sandhu awarded (News)
Non teaching staff not relenting, says KU VC (News)
362 teachers regularised (News)
College secured 2nd position in Youth Fest (News)
VC honoured with Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Award (News)
Youth Fest held (News)
Alumni meet program held (News)
Discussion on Mumbai Dibbawala (News)
End of boxing championship (News)
Certificate course in computer application (Admission Notice)
National seminar on human disease (News)
B Ed course (Admission Notice)
Guv nominates KU court members (News)
Clerk, Peon and Technical Asstt (Job Vacancy)
KU me record retirement (News)
Non teaching employees await their grade updation (News)
Unspecified teaching posts (Job Vacancy)
Supply of Public Health Services (Tender)
4 students ko HKU se nishkasan ki teyari (News)
Diploma in E Commerce (Admission Notice)
Casteist remarks kick up at soccer meet (News)
KU doubles award money for scientists (News)
Supply of CCTV system (Tender)
HKU students ka cramic anshan (News)
Kalpana Chawlas husband, NASA official to visit KU (News)
Anshankari students ki aya, CM ka bulava (News)
Students win accolades at AIU fest (News)
Internal Examination leaked (News)
RTI query reveals two cheated in MPhil exam in KU (News)
Master Degree in Hotel Management (Admission Notice)
KU me students election na karne ka parshasan ka faisla (News)
B Ed course (Admission Notice)
Wife accuse KU VC of domestic violence (News)
KU VCs wife withdraws complaint against husband (News)
Meeting of Advisory council with Academic Staff (News)
VC ko bachane ke liye rajniti davab (News)
Economics course started (News)
KU VCs wife takes back complaint (News)
M Tech in SCE (Admission Notice)
M Tech in CSE (Admission Notice)
Three day strike disrupts admininstrative work at KU (News)
Setting up of conservation lab (Tender)
Faculty on regular basis (Job Vacancy)
Students burnt Chancellor statue (News)
Hostel Supervisor (Job Vacancy)
Asstt Professor (Job Vacancy)
MCA Programme (Admission Notice)
B Tech in Instrumentation (Admission Notice)
Deepender makes Political speech at KU (News)
KU auditorium gutted (News)
KU non teaching staff go on strike (News)
M Ed course (Admission Notice)
PU Prof to inaugurate workshop at KU (News)
Repair work for Auditorium (Tender)
JU men beat KU in Handball championship (News)
Governor briefed on KU functioning (News)
Adnmission forms spell moolah for KU (News)
Shiksha yatra reaches KU (News)
KU selects 8 scientist for Goyal awards (News)
KU rajnetao ki bhi nursery (News)
Alumni meet held (Alumni Meet)
KU distances itself from Good Governance Day celebrations (News)
Over 9900 take UGC NET (News)
KU forms panel to settle officers extension issue (News)
Speculations rife on govt formation in KU (News)
Scheme and Syllabus for the BA and MSc students (Advertisement)
World class shooting range to be set up at KU (News)
KU gets Ion beam centre (News)
Kiran helps KU register facile voctory (News)
KU crowned champions (News)
Outsourced staff of KU stage dharna, seek salaries (News)
Islamic conference hel,d (News)
KU to hold International conference from March 13 (News)
University association to hold annual meet (News)
Three day photography festival held (News)
Processing work of OMR title (Tender)
KU employees, officials still at loggerheads (News)
KU staffer suspended for trying to influence controller of exams (News)
KU outsourcing workers protest (News)
Notice to Hry after KU VC moves court (News)
BSc in Home Science (Job Vacancy)
Students in lurch as KU halts adnission (News)
Hry varsity gives 22/20 marks in interview for asstt prof post (News)
KU VC in dock over selection khattar marks vigilance inquiry (News)
RTI se badi KU ki AC (News)
KU all set to become first digital university of Haryana (News)
KU launches mobile app for distance education students (News)

Media coverage of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana, Haryana

KU degrees invalid

Chandigarh, July 13, 2009
A large number of passouts from Kurukshetra University’s (KU) distance education programme over the past 12 years are in the job market with 'invalid degrees' of nearly 35-odd courses offered by the university’s centre.

What's worse is that the students are not even aware that the degrees they hold are not recognised by the Distance Education Council (DEC), the central body for upholding standards and providing recognition to distance education programmes.

This is true for all students who cleared various courses from the Distance Education Centre between 1995 and 2007. Though the university, on its part, never bothered to inform the students that it did not have the mandatory DEC approval for running the distance education programme, their rejection at the hands of prospective employers has come as a jolt.

The application for the post of a lecturer in a college of Delhi University of an M Phil passout from the centre was rejected on grounds that it was “invalid”, leaving him shocked. A few other passouts, presently employed in the private sector, know their degrees are invalid but have escaped a rap because the degrees are not subjected to any scrutiny while still others have been sacked and left unemployed for want of “recognition”.

The alumni rue that even after the matter has been brought to the notice of the authorities, nothing much is being done to rectify the error. 'They can get post-facto approval for all degrees issued between the said period but are not pushing hard enough. We have even approached the DEC but the officials there insist that the case has to be pursued by the university. We have been cheated,' an alumnus claims.

The KU administration introduced distance education programmes in 1976 when there was no need of getting recognition from any authority at that time. However, in 1995, the DEC was established by the government in order to coordinate and maintain the standards of distance education in the country.

Thereafter, the recognition of the DEC for all distance education courses was made compulsory for all universities, but KU did not pay any heed to get recognition for years.

'We have temporary recognition of the council for our courses since 2007. For the degrees issued before that, we have put up our case. A committee constituted for the matter was to visit us last August but could not do so. We will take up the matter again. Our file has been pending for a couple of years. We don’t understand why the council is not giving us recognition for the courses it has approved after 2007,' says centre director MP Mathur.

However, he is not exactly able to say when the university first put up the case for post-facto approval. Mathur explains that in 1995, the university was offering over 40 courses and had an enrolment of 18,000 students. The number of students gradually went up and by 2007 their strength had increased to over 35,000 while the number of courses too went up slightly.

The Vice-Chancellor of KU, Prof RP Bajpai, said, 'I am in the know of things. In fact, the matter was discussed at a meeting here today. We will pursue the matter with the council with renewed vigour.'

However, while the council sits over the case and the university authorities move at their own slow pace, the future of lakhs of students remains uncertain.

KU distance education dept calls applications for B.Ed

Thursday, 28 May 2009
CHANDIGARH: Directorate of Distance Education, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has invited applications from eligible teachers for admission to two-year B.Ed. programme for the academic
session 2009-10.

While giving this information, an official spokesman said that the teachers having two years teaching experience in Government Schools and Colleges, Aided and private institutions in the state would be eligible for admission. He said that the last date for receipt of application would be June 30, 2009. He said that the admission would be made through entrance test which would be held on August 8, 2009 at Kurukshetra or any other centre decided by the competent authority later on.

He said that the two year B.Ed. programme recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), would be offered through five study centers in NCTE approved B.Ed. colleges located at Kurukshetra University, Ambala, Karnal and Yamunanagar. The prospectus containing eligibility conditions, fee structure, programme schedule etc. could be obtained from Manager (P & P), Kurukshetra. The prospectus could also be viewed on website http://kukinfo.com, he added.

SONI DALAL Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.2192 of 2009

Date of Decision: April 27, 2009

Soni Dalal .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Others .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the respondents.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
On 11.2.2009, the following order was passed:-

The petitioner prays for indulgence of this Court to be called for interview for University Research Scholarship. Learned counsel contends that letter of interview was received late i.e. after the scheduled date of interview itself. It has been pointed out that neither interview has been held nor admission given so far.

Scholarship has also not been awarded to any person.

Notice of motion.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Copy of the petition be supplied to him during the course of the day.

Adjourned to 10.3.2009.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that interview scheduled for 24.12.2008 had not been held and therefore, the petitioner still has a chance to compete.

Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Annexure R-1 to say that indeed the meeting was held on 24.12.2008 and recommendations were made. One Munish Kumar was awarded URS (University Research Scholarship) in Computer Science and Applications. The petition has beenfiled on wrong premises that the meeting was not
held on 24.12.2008.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, no possible relief can be given to the petitioner as before the petition had been filed, the process had already been concluded.
The petition is disposed of.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

PNB to accept KU fees online all over India, MoU signed

22 May 2008
Kurukshetra: Punjab National Bank and Kurukshetra University inked a MoU to collect fees of Kurukshetra University students in all its CBS branches in the country.

PNB Circle Manager G S Chauhan and KU Vice Chancellor Dr R P Bajpai signed the MOU in the university guest house last evening in the presence of some senior officers of the university and the bank.

Dr Bajpai said that the MoU will not only help the university collect the fees in time without losing time in reconciliation of bank drafts in the current procedure, but also will help the students and youths to deposit their fees for registration or installments of the courses near their homes throughout the country.

He said about four lakh students join various courses of the university under the distance education system and the collection of fees is done in one branch of OBC in the university. Youths throng the campus to deposit fees and long queues are the daily scenes before the bank branch.

The new system will facilitate the youths to deposit fees in any PNB branch all over the country and the slips issued by the bank would be considered as fees paid on the date, though application forms could be delayed in transaction to the university.


SP ARORA Versus THE VICE CHANCELLOR KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITYand other Civil Writ Petition 7180 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 23.02.2011

S.P. Arora ....Petitioner
VERSUS
The Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra Universityand others
....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:
Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S.S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of writ petition bearing Nos.7180 of
2006, 13896 of 2007 and 1329 of 2009. The facts have been taken from CWP No.7180 of 2006.

The petitioner had joined the services of the University as
Junior Clerk on 30.8.1962. During the course of his service, he was promoted as Assistant Registrar in the year 1999 and had retired as Deputy Registrar on 31.8.2005. He has approached this Court with the grievance that the posts of Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the University were equated with the posts of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary respectively posted in the Haryana Civil Secretariat. On this basis, the respondent-University passed a resolution on 29.12.1989 equating the said posts. The Haryana Government, thereafter, adopted the new pay-scale policy for its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Finance Department Haryana, accordingly, allowed the Universities in Haryana to adopt new pay scales. The Assistant Registrars working in the Universities in Haryana were given the pay scale of Rs.10000-13900+ special pay of Rs.400-- per month. Deputy Registrars were placed in the scale of Rs.12000- 16500 + special pay of Rs.400-- per month. The respondent- Kurukshetra University had also allowed and granted the scales on 17.2.1999.

On 8.12.2000, Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Education Department issued an another letter
releasing the arrears etc. This related to the teaching staff only.

Though the Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar have been equated with the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary but they were given a different scale w.e.f 8.5.2003 and they were fixed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500-- instead of Rs.10000-13900-- without any special pay.

The Registrar of the University sent a letter keeping in view resolution dated 16.11.2004 requesting the Government to grant approval for grant of scale of Rs. 10000-13900 + special pay of Rs.400-- to the Assistant Registrar and scale of Rs.12000-16500+ special pay of Rs.400-- to the Deputy Registrar. Vice Chancellor also wrote a D.O. letter to the Finance Commissioner. The petitioner also served a legal notice. But the action to re-fix the pay has not been taken and rather recovery has been ordered to be effected from the
petitioner.

The submission is that having equated the pay scale with
Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the Government is not justified in giving different pay scale leading to recovery from the pension of the petitioner. The State counsel, however, has tried to justify this action on the ground that the scales of Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar have been fixed as per the UGC norms. Time was given to the State counsel to have instruction, if the State would grant the pay scale by equating the petitioner, who was Assistant Registrar and then promoted as Deputy Registrar with Under
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary respectively. The State counsel has expressed inability to do so as it would be in violation of the UGC guidelines-norms.

The counsel for parties have been heard. It is pointed out that the pay scale earlier granted has been withdrawn without issuing any show cause notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is, thus, a clear cause of violation of principle of natural justice. The respondents have also not considered whether by re-fixing the pay they would be entitled to recover the amount when there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.

The impugned order thus, cannot be sustained. Let the matter be re-examined in the light of fact that earlier the pay
scale of the petitioner was equated with under Secretary, which has been withdrawn. It is for the Government to see whether any decision of the UGC would be binding on the government once it had earlier taken a decision to equate the Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar with Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary. The Government would also consider whether it is possible to effect recovery from the pension of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondents are also directed to refund the amount to the petitioner, which has been recovered so far as the same is not justified.

This however, would not stand in the way of the respondents to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.

The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

(RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE

DHARAM BIR and OTHERS Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and OTHERS Date of Decision: February 09 2011

Civil Misc.No.4878 of 1993 (O and M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Dharam Bir and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ...Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:
Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Nikhil Chopra, Advocate, for
Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge the appointment of respondent Nos.2 to 6 on the ground that they
were not eligible for being appointed as Stenographers as they did not fulfill the essential educational qualification for appointment to the said post.

The petitioners were working as Steno-typists with the respondent-University. On 23.11.1992, the University invited
applications for the posts of Stenographer, which were to be filled on the basis of competitive test from amongst the Steno-typists and Assistants serving in the University. As per the notification, the candidates were required to have the qualification of Bachelor's Degree and three years experience as Steno-typist. Reference is also made to the provisions of the Calendar applicable to the University where minimum educational qualification for the post of Stenographer is Bachelor's Degree and three years experience as Steno-typist.

The petitioners claim that they were eligible to be appointed as Stenographers and have wrongly been ignored while giving appointment to respondent Nos.2 to 6, who even were not eligible. Concededly, respondent Nos.2 to 6 were having matriculation as an educational qualification, though they did fulfill the criteria of experience.

To explain and justify their eligibility, the respondents would rely upon Regulation 5 of University Calendar, Volume III, Edition 1984, Chapter 1, which is as under:-

For internal candidates, the qualifications prescribed for various posts may be relaxed by the appointing authority wherever considered necessary on the merits of each case.

It is accordingly stated that the respondent-University had the power to relax the qualification in a deserving case and accordingly had relaxed the condition of educational qualification in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 6. In addition, it is pointed out that all the petitioners (except petitioner No.8) had applied for the post and had competed in the selection for appointment to the post of Stenographer. The petitioners alongwith the selected candidates had taken the test on the basis of which the selection was made.

Respondent Nos.2 to 6 were selected, whereas the petitioners failed to make the grade. It is only thereafter that the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

As per the reply filed, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the present selection. As having participated in the
process of selection, they cannot turn around and challenge the same once they are unsuccessful.

The present writ petition filed in the year 1993 was admitted on 28.1.1994 and has now come up for hearing. The appointment of respondent Nos.2 to 6 was not stayed in any manner and they have continued to perform the duties of Stenographer for
over a period of 18 years. The counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the action of the respondents in relaxing the educational qualification may not sound fair, especially if it is viewed in the background that this was done without any intimation in the advertisement or otherwise. As per the counsel, this would have deprived large number of people from applying thinking that they are not eligible to apply for the post.

There may be a substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. However, the fact that the University had a power to relax educational qualification is not in any dispute.

There is no serious challenge to the provisions of the regulations, as per which, the University has the power to relax the qualification in deserving in service candidates. Once the University has come forward to say that this requirement of educational qualification was relaxed in the case of respondent Nos.2 to 6 and they were permitted to compete and were successful on the basis of test, it would not be fair to interfere in the selection at this belated stage, especially so when they have continued to perform their duties for all these years.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh JUDGE

BRAHAM SHAKTI Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS CM 5284 of 2010 in and L P A 1746 of 2010



BRAHAM SHAKTI Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS



BRAHAM SHAKTI Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS



RICHA AND ANOTHER Versus KURUKSHTRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS CWP 11407 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP 11407 of 2009(O and M)

Decided on : 09 -02-2011

Richa and another ....Petitioners
VERSUS
Kurukshtra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:-
Mr.Girish Agnihotri Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Pal , Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondents

MAHESH GROVER, J
The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not issuing roll numbers to them for 2nd year examination of B.Sc. Nursing course despite the fact that they have completed 1st year examination and have fulfilled all the eligibility conditions.

The brief case as set up by them is that they had applied for
B.Sci (Nursing). The eligibility condition as per the form given out by the college (Annexure P-7) provided conditions which were at variance than the one which were prescribed in the form.

The admission having been granted to the petitioners in the year 2007, the same was cancelled by the Kurukshetra University in December 2007 forcing the petitioners to come to this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

At the time of issuance of notice of motion this Court granted
the petitioners the permission to continue with their course provisionally, but made it clear that the order of this Court would not confer any equitable right in their favour. It was also stipulated in this order that the result of the petitioners shall not be declared without the leave of the Court. The petitioners thereafter continued on the strength of this order dated 31.7.2009 and further by the order dated 20.5.2010.

As a consequence thereof they have completed four years of
their course and are nearing its completion. The case of the petitioners having been outlined as above, the grievance stands crystalized as thus:-

they were not made aware of any other condition which was contrary to the eligibility conditions given out in the form while the respondents stand is that the University calendar provided for eligibility conditions which are not in conformity with the ones given out in the form and they thus being bound by the provisions of the University calendar, the action of the cancellation of the admission is well justified. The relevant clause of the ordinance of the Kurukshetra University calendar Vol. II giving out eligibility conditions is as below:-

2.1 A person who shall attain the age of 17 years or more on December 31st of the year of admission and has passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (12 year Course)/Senior School Certificate Examination (10+2)/ Pre-Degree Examination (10+2) or an equivalent Examination with 12 years schooling with at least five subjects including Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English with minimum of 50% aggregate marks (PCBE) from a Board/Institute recognized by Kurukshetra University, shall be eligible to join the 1st year B.Sc. Nursing Course. A candidate getting compartment in 10+2 Examination will be considered for admission in case he produces the proof of passing qualifying examination (10+2) on the day of counseling.

Provided that the percentage of marks, as specified above, will be reduced to 40% in case of the candidates belonging to SC/ST.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon due
consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the respondents is unsustainable.

The case of the petitioners is that they were not made aware of
eligibility conditions as contained in the calendar apparently does not seem to be mis-placed. The form that was given out to them contained the eligibility clause which the petitioners fulfilled and they were thus very well within their rights to respond to it to meet their aspirations of undergoing the course which was being offered to them. If the eligibility condition as
given in the form is at variance with the provisions of the ordinance of the Kurukshetra University then it is the college which has to be faulted with and not the petitioners. The University in its wisdom did not take action against the college but has left the students to be penalized for it. It is not the case of the respondents that there had been any mis-representation on the part of the petitioners and if that be so, then there is no reason to deprive the petitioners of their right to complete the course. That apart the petitioners have produced the minutes of the admission Committee of 18th July, 2007 which is taken on record as mark 'A' and which reveals that the University was represented by its own nominee who acted as a observer during the process of admission and upon giving his stamp of approval has acquiesced to the process of the admission and cannot at this stage back out of the decision to say that the petitioners' admission to the course was invalid. In case titled as Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra AIR 1976 SC 376, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear.

For the aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is allowed.

The impugned action of the respondents in cancelling the admission of the petitioners is held to be illegal and unsustainable. The petitioners continuation in the course shall not be disturbed for the reason aforesaid and their results shall be declared.

(Mahesh Grover)
Judge

ANIL KUMAR AND OTHE RS Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS CWP 7845 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Decided on : 8.2.2011

Anil Kumar and others ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:-
Mr. Ravinder Malik-Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for University

MAHESH GROVER, J
It is not disputed that the matter is covered by the decision of
this Court rendered in CWP no.9532 of 2009 decided on 1.2.2011.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in the same terms and the
respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner.

(Mahesh Grover)
Judge

MEGHNA SHARMA Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS CWP 13903 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Decided on : 02 -02-2011

Meghna Sharma ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:-
Mr. Naveen S Bhardwaj , Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil K Chopra, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3
Mr. Parampreet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4.

MAHESH GROVER, J
Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 states that grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. The roll number of the petitioner was sent to the University and the petitioner has thereafter taken the examination but has been unable to clear the said examination.

Having regard to the aforesaid, when the only prayer made by
the petitioner was for seeking directions to send the form of the petitioner to University, I am of the considered opinion that no cause of action no survives in the petition. Accordingly, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

(Mahesh Grover)
Judge

REENA CHAUHAN Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND ORS CWP 9532 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

1)
Reena Chauhan ....Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Ors. ...Respondents

2) C.W.P.No.10667 of 2009
Ved Parkash and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Ors. ...Respondents

3) C.W.P.No.20607 of 2009
Ms.Om Pati ....Petitioner
Versus
The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Ors. ...Respondents

4) C.W.P.No.13699 of 2009
Mahavir Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra ...Respondent

5) C.W.P.No.4596 of 2010
Pinki ....Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Ors. ...Respondents

6) C.W.P.No.8896 of 2010
Mamta Malik ....Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Ors. ...Respondents

Date of Decision : 1.2.2011

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present :
Mr. Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No.9532 of 2009).
Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP Nos.10667 of 2009 & 4596 of 2010).
Mr.Surinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No.20607 of 2009).
Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No.13699 of 2009).
Mr.S.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.8896 of 2010).
Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the respondent/respondents No.1 and 2 (in all the writ petitions) s
Mr.Sandeep Singh Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP No.9532 of 2009).

MAHESH GROVER, J.
This common judgment will dispose of all the six civil writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. Nos.9532, 10667, 20607, 13699 of 2009,
4596 and 8896 of 2010.

The facts of the case are that the petitioners appeared for CET-B.Ed. Entrance Examination in 2007 and got admissions on
16.10.2007 after the cut off date for admission which was 13.10.2007.

It is their case that they were granted the regular admission and they attended the course. The college sent their names when the examination was to be conducted and the University issued Roll Numbers and permitted them to appear in the examination.

But now the result is not being declared on the ground that they had obtained admission on 16.10.2007 i.e. three days after the cut off date. The further grievance of the petitioners is that even those students who were granted admission on 13.10.2007 were permitted three days joining time and, therefore, it was hardly of any consequence if they got admission on 16.10.2007.

It is further their grievance that the respondents cannot decline to declare the result of the petitioners because of the reason that the University itself issued the Roll Numbers and for no fault of the petitioners they are being victimised.

The stand of the respondent-University is that there was no
provision under which the college could grant admission after the cut off date and that some colleges which were desirous of admitting the students after the cut off date have filed writ petitions before this Court in which interim directions were given permitting the colleges to admit the students. The writ petitions were eventually dismissed and Special Leave Petitions were preferred against the same. The Supreme Court permitted them to take the admission provisionally without conferring an equitable right in favour of the petitioners.

Finally, the Special Leave to Appeal was also dismissed and the admission and result of those students who filed the SLPs and the students who were similarly situated as the petitioners was cancelled.

It was thus pleaded that the result of the petitioners cannot be
declared and their admission has to be cancelled. It was further
pleaded by the University that the petitioners who were merely
permitted to take the admission on the principle of parity as the
Supreme Court had granted the permission provisionally to the
students whose case was being espoused by the institutions and they in order to avoid further litigation extended the benefit to even those students who were not before the Courts.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material produced before the Court.

It is not disputed that the petitioners were granted admission after the cut off date. It is also not in dispute that the names of the petitioners were forwarded by the college authorities to the
University for issuance of Roll Numbers which the respondent-
University did and permitted the petitioners to take the examination.

The petitioners took the examinations and are now awaiting the result which is being declined to them only on the grounds that :

(i) the admission was contrary to the rules;

(ii) various colleges had filed writ petitions espousing the cause of the students who were similarly situated which petitions were dismissed and the order of this court was upheld by the Supreme Court; and

iii) the students who were permitted to take the examination provisionally without any equitable right in their favour, their admissions have been cancelled and the petitioners who were granted the permission only on the principle of parity with those students cannot have a better claim.

The contention of the learned counsel for the University cannot be accepted. When the names were forwarded to them for
issuance of Roll Numbers, they ought to have woken up to the
situation to deny such Roll Numbers to all the students. The plea of ignorance cannot be accepted more so when they were already seized of a litigation initiated by the colleges who were also pleading justification for admitting the students beyond the cut off date. The students having no inkling of the intention of the University proceeded to take the examination and thus the plea of the University that as a benevolent measure they extended the principle of parity and granted the benefit of the interim directions of the Supreme Court to the petitioners is also without any meaning for the simple reason that they never brought this to the notice of the petitioners. Thus, it cannot be accepted that the University now rake up the plea that they had
merely granted this concession to the petitioners, for the reason that they speak of, was not to the knowledge of the petitioners at all who took examinations in good faith believing that all was well with their admission. A Division Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Kumar v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, (P&H)(D.B.) 1997(3)S.C.T.442 held that once a student has been given admission and allowed to take examination, his result cannot be withheld for the reason which is not justifiably attributed to him. Likewise, in Rajender Singh v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 1993(4)S.C.T. 336 this Court while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Shri
Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 observed as follows :-

10. From a perusal of the sequence of events, it appears to be clearly a case where the University is trying to take advantage of its own wrong. The petitioner had admittedly not concealed any fact either at the time of the admission to his college or at the time of the submission of his form to the University. He had stated the facts clearly and categorically. The University in its turn had issued the Roll Number to the petitioner and allowed him to take the examination. Once that had happened, in my view, it was totally arbitrary for the University to withhold the petitioner's result. In fact, the Apex court in Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 had been pleased to observe as under :-

Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out
and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear.

Likewise, in Rimmi Sehgal Minor v. Punjab School Education Board, 1992(1) S.C.T.202 this Court observed that where the students are not at fault and there is no concealment, their right to pursue the course should not be defeated.

A Single Bench of this Court has also held that the university authorities having acquiesced to the infirmities committed by the college cannot deny the students their rights.

Upon due consideration of the entire matter and in the light of the observations of the various pronouncements extracted above, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent-University cannot justifiably detain the result of the petitioners more so when it acquiesced to the admissions of the petitioners and demonstrated laxity in not apprising the students at the right time about the fault lines in their admission process and also failed to make them aware that their action in granting them permission to take examination was an exercise designedly camouflaged in benevolence.

For the aforesaid reason, I accept all the writ petitions and direct the University to declare the result of the petitioners and not to cancel their admission.

(MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY Versus ANIL KUMAR AND ANR CWP 19103 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 27.4.2007

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Petitioner
versus
Anil Kumar and another Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present:
Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Namit Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a communication dated 26.4.2007, addressed to the counsel, by the Deputy Registrar (Exam-I), Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, wherein it has been stated that if the workman agree to forego back wages, the Univeristy
will employ him subject to availability of the work, on old terms and conditions, which were applicable to him before his disengagement.

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of order passed today in CWP No.5377 of 2006 titled as Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra v.

Sukh Mohinder Singh and another.

( Jasbir Singh )
Judge

(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KKR Versus BIMLA RANI and ANR CWP 9255 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 27.4.2007

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Petitioner
versus
Bimla Rani and another Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present:
Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a photocopy of communication dated 26.4.2007, addressed to the counsel, by the Assistant Registrar (Secrecy), Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, wherein it has been stated that if the workman agree to forego back wages, the Univeristy will employ her subject to availability of the work, on old terms and conditions, which were applicable to her before his disengagement.

It is an admitted fact that after passing of the award, the
respondent-workman was not taken back in service. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent-workman, stating that in case she is taken back in service and allowed to continue as such, she will not claim back wages.

In view of the facts of this case and order passed in CWP No.17868 of 2006 titled as Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra v. Rameshwar and another decided on 20.3.2007, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner-University, to take back the respondent-workman in service forthwith. As agreed by counsel for the respondent-workman, the respondent-workman shall not claim back wages, if taken back in service. We also feel that respondent-workman is entitled to benefit of Section 17-B of the Act due to the pendency of the writ
petition. The amount be calculated and paid to him within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

( Jasbir Singh )
Judge

(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KKR UNIVERSTITY KKR S Versus SHIV RATTAN and ANR CWP 9255 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 27.4.2007

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Petitioner
versus
Bimla Rani and another Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present:
Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a photocopy of communication dated 26.4.2007, addressed to the counsel, by the Assistant Registrar (Secrecy), Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, wherein it has been stated that if the workman agree to forego back wages, the Univeristy will employ her subject to availability of the work, on old terms and conditions, which were applicable to her before his disengagement.

It is an admitted fact that after passing of the award, the
respondent-workman was not taken back in service. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent-workman, stating that in case she is taken back in service and allowed to continue as such, she will not claim back wages.

In view of the facts of this case and order passed in CWP No.17868 of 2006 titled as Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra v. Rameshwar and another decided on 20.3.2007, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner-University, to take back the respondent-workman in service forthwith. As agreed by counsel for the respondent-workman, the respondent-workman shall not claim back wages, if taken back in service. We also feel that respondent-workman is entitled to benefit of Section 17-B of the Act due to the pendency of the writ
petition. The amount be calculated and paid to him within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

( Jasbir Singh )
Judge

(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge

PURAN SINGH Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS Regular Second Appeal 2440 of 2004

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision:23.4.2007.

Dr.Puran Singh. ...Appellant.
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others. ...Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

Present:
Mr.Ravi Verma Advocate for the appellant. Judgment.

S. N. Aggarwal, J.
The appellant was working as a Lecturer with the respondents with effect from 1.4.1989. One post of Reader in the Department of Education (Department of Social Assistance/DSA) was advertised by the respondents. The appellant had applied for it. He was called for interview and the interview was held on 7.8.1997. Apprehending the selection of undeserved candidates, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.13381 of 1997 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.7.1999 as the respondents had made the statement that eligibility was to be determined by Selection Committee.

The Selection Committee recommended relaxation of eligibility criteria for appointment of the appellant against the post of Reader but it was rejected by the Executive Council and by order dated 5.1.2000, they directed the re-advertisement of the said post. Hence, the appellant filed a civil suit challenging the resolution of the Executive Council dated 5.1.2000 and prayed that he be appointed as Reader on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee on 7.8.1997.

The suit was contested by the respondents.

The parties led the evidence but the learned trial Court
dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003.

The appellant filed an appeal. The learned Appellate Court upheld the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.1.2004. Hence, the present appeal.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the name of the appellant was recommended by the Selection Committee. It was bound to be accepted by the Executive Council and the post could not have been re-advertised.

Considered.

The appellant did not fulfil the qualifications and the
recommendation was made by the Selection Committee for relaxation in the qualifications. This recommendation was, however, not accepted by the Executive Council and the Executive Council vide resolution dated 5.1.2000 directed the post to be re-advertised.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria or the minimum qualification/experience. The Selection Committee had no power to relax the eligibility criteria. The Executive Council who was competent to relax did not accept the recommendation for relaxation of
eligibility criteria. It was totally the domain of Executive Council.

The settled law is that the Academic Bodies are to determine the eligibility criteria. It is not for the Judicial Courts to impose on the Academic Bodies its own decision about the qualifications/eligibility criteria or the relaxation thereof.

No merit.

Dismissed.

( S. N. Aggarwal )
Judge

DINESH Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR CWP 18169 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.18169 OF 2007

DATE OF DECISION: 14-02-2008

Dr. Dinesh .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another
.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

PRESENT:
Mr.Sanjeev K.Tamak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate and
Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education in the University Teaching Department.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is Post-graduate in
physical education in Ist Class as well as has qualified National Eligibility Test in terms of the University Grant Commission Regulations for appointment to the post of Lecturer. He has teaching experience of 22 months.

It is the case of the petitioner that the criteria framed by
the University Annexure P9 suffers from vires of arbitrariness as a candidate, who has Ph.D. Degree to his credit falls in category 5 whereas a candidate with M.Phil. Ist Class falls in category No.3. Dr.Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents states that rationality of the criteria need not be gone into in the present case as the University will consider the petitioner within zone of consideration and the Selection Committee which has considered the candidature of the
other candidates, will consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the same manner and as the candidature of the other candidates was considered. The petitioner, if found meritorious on the basis of comparative merit, he shall be re-commended for appointment against the post of Lecturer. Dr.Gupta contends that this concession is meant only for the petitioner in the present selection process.

In view of the said fact, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents-University to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education by re-convening the Selection Committee with the same experts and in the same manner and in all fairness for appointment to the post of Lecturer. If the petitioner is found meritorious on the basis of comparative merit, necessary steps shall be taken by the University in accordance with law. With the said directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

If the petitioner feels aggrieved against the final selection process, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to his remedy as per law.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

( MOHINDER PAL )
JUDGE

RAMESH SHARMA AND ANR Versus STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION HRY CWP 1924 OF 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 8.2.2008

Ramesh Sharma and another ...Petitioners
versus
The State Information Commission, Haryana and others.
...Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

Present:
Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

M.M.KUMAR, J.

The short question raised in the instant petition is whether a State
Information Commission could impose penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The instant petition is directed against order dated 16.10.2007 (P-1) passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana (for brevity, `the Commission'), imposing a penalty of Rs. 19,250/- by invoking the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act for 77 delay in
furnishing the information in accordance with mandatory provisions of subsection (1) of Section 7 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that applicant-respondent No.3 made an
application dated 16.10.2006 for seeking specified information from the petitioner. However, information was not furnished to the respondent No.3. On 1.2.2007 only a part of information was given and the supplementary information was made available to him on 14.2.2007. After waiting for some time, applicantrespondent No.3 had filed an appeal before the Commission on 1.12.2006, who relegated him to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority prior to approaching the Commission. Accordingly, he filed the first appeal on 2.1.2007
before the Vice-Chancellor of the University with the grievance that he was not supplied the required information. The University had constituted the First Appellate Authority on 2.3.2007 under the Act. Consequently, the applicantrespondent No.3 approached the Second Appellate Authority again on 20.2.2007. The petitioner filed the reply before the Second Appellate Authority
on 23.7.2007 (P-2) raising preliminary objection that applicant-respondent No.3 should have approached the First Appellate Authority in the first instance, eventually the Commission allowed the appeal filed by applicant-respondent No.3 vide order dated 1.8.2007 and issued direction to the petitioners to allow applicant-respondent No.3 to inspect the record. The needful was done by the petitioners as per the direction issued. It was thereafter the Commission issued a show-cause notice (P-3) to the petitioner, asking the petitioner as to why a penalty @ Rs. 250/- for each day of delay subject to maximum of Rs. 25,000/- in supplying the information be not imposed. The Commission initiated proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act. The petitioner filed his reply dated 1.10.2007 (P-4) to the show-cause notice. The Commission after detailed examination recorded the finding imposing penalty on the petitioner, the operative part of the order dated 16.10.2007 reads thus:-

“After hearing the respondent and perusal of the record, it is
held that respondent has not been able to show that he had acted
diligently or delay occurred due to reasonable cause. In fact, SPIO has acted in most casual manner in processing the application with the result that there has been a delay of 77 days in furnishing the information. A perusal of the record show that the application was sent by SPIO in original to the concerned branch without any instructions for obtaining the information from them. SPIO took no notice of the fact no information had been sent by the concerned branch till 4.12.2006. Even after the receipt of information on 4.12.2006, it was only on 1.02.2007 that partial information was furnished to the appellant where the information was due to be furnished latest by 16.11.2006 under sub section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. Thus, there has been delay of 77 days in furnishing the information. Respondent has not been able to show any reasonable cause for this delay. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, a penalty of Rs. 19,250/- for 77 days delay in furnishing the information in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 7 days is imposed on the respondent.

He shall deposit the penalty amount in the Commission's head of
Account 0070-Administrative Services-60-Other receipts, DDO
Code-0049 within 20 days of the receipt of this order under
information to the Commission.

Announced. To be communicated.”

Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has made three
submissions before us. Firstly, he has submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act would not apply unless findings are recorded that the petitioner has been persistently delaying the supply of information and that too without any reasonable cause. According to learned counsel, it is not that in every case of delay, penalty could be imposed by placing reliance on sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the Act. Secondly, he has submitted that the Commission could not have proceeded against the petitioners without firstly training the public authority like the petitioners as envisaged by Section 26 of the Act. According to learned
counsel it was incumbent upon the State Government to train the petitioner by encouraging their participation in the development and organisation of programmes as envisaged by Section 26(1) (a) of the Act. Learned counsel has insisted that in the absence of any such programmes, having been organised to train the Public Information Officer like the petitioner, the Commission should
have taken a lenient view by sparing the petitioner from imposition of such a penalty. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that no second appeal was maintainable without first filing. The first appeal before the authority constituted by the Kurukshetra University.

We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and are unable to accept the same. It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act which reads thus:-

“20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of
deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or
knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or
obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall
impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.”

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given
a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
imposed on him; Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer, or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act makes it obvious that the Commission could impose the penalty for the simple reasons of delay in furnishing the information within the period specified by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. According to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, a period of 30 days has been provided for furnishing of information. If the
information is not furnished within the time specified by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act then under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, public authorities failing in furnishing the requisite information could be penalised. It is true that in cases of intentional delay, the same provision could be invoked but in
cases where there is simple delay the Commission has been clothed with adequate power. Therefore, the first argument that the penalty under subsection (1) of Section 20 of the Act could be imposed, only in cases where there is repeated failure to furnish the information and that too without any reasonable cause, is liable to be rejected. The Commission is empowered under subsection(2) of Section 20 of the Act to recommend disciplinary action against such State/Central Public Information Officer under the service rules applicable to such officers. However, the present is not the case of that nature because the Commission has not been invoked under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Hence, the argument raised is wholly misconceived and is hereby rejected.

The second submission that lenient view should have been taken
on account of failure of the Government to organise any programme to train public authorities as envisaged by Section 26 of the Act is equally without merit.

The Act has come in force in the year 2005 and the petitioners were required to constitute the Public Information Officer or the appropriate authorities. The petitioners could constitute the First Appellate Authority only on 2.3.2007, which resulted in filing of second appeal before the Commission. The petitioner has
completely ignored the provisions of the Act and appears to have awaken only after the applicant-respondent No.3 has asked for information and filed the first appeal. The petitioners cannot avoid the mandatory provisions of sub-section 1 of Section 20 of the Act on the excuse that any training programme as envisaged
by sub-section (1) (a) of Section 26 of the Act has not been organised by the Government encouraging participation of the petitioners in the development and organisation of programmes. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the second contention raised by the learned counsel.

The last contention that second appeal cannot be filed, does not
require any detailed consideration because a perusal of Section 19 (3) of the Act shows that after waiting for a period of 90 days, the applicant seeking information is entitled to invoke the power of Second Appellate Authority.

It has come on record that applicant-respondent No.3 had
originally filed application for obtaining information on 16.10.2006 before the petitioner. The information was required to be furnished to him within a period of 30 days as per the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act. The information was not furnished to him and accordingly he filed an appeal before the Commission
which was Second Appellate Authority on 1.2.2006 apparently for the reason that the First Appellate Authority was not constituted. However, the Commission relegated the applicant-respondent No.3 to the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority could not furnish information within 30 days and
consequently he preferred further appeal. The First Appellate Authority itself was constituted on 2.3.2007 and no first appeal was competent. Moreover, the appeal was filed before the Commission on 20.2.2007 after awaiting period of 30 days from the date of filing the application on 16.10.2006. Even if the period of 90 days is applied which is prescribed for second appeal, the appeal was within limitation. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel cannot, thus, be sustained and the same is also rejected.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE

(T.P.S.MANN)
JUDGE

JOGI RAM Versus KURUKSHETRA UNI KURUKSHETRA CR No 5372 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.R. No.5372 of 2006

Date of Decision: 24.1.2008

Jogi Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra ...Respondent
....
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Present :
Mr.Anish Setia,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.V.S.Rana,Advocate for the respondent.
...
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The petitioner, impugns an order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, accepting an appeal, filed by the respondent and setting aside the order dated 21.9.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, dismissing an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree.

The learned Additional District Judge,while accepting the appeal, has failed to make any reference, to the sufficient cause disclosed by the respondent. The learned appellate Court, merely proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Guhla, on the ground that as public money was involved, the ex-parte decree should be set aside. The above fact, though relevant, is an enabling fact and can in no circumstance be the sole reason for setting aside an ex-parte decree. The learned appellate Court was required to consider the merits of the case, the sufficiency of the cause shown and only thereafter, accept the appeal.

The learned trial Court had recorded a categoric finding that the respondent was aware of the proceedings and in fact had put in appearance after the case was remanded to the trial Court. These findings have not been dealt with or considered.

In this view of the matter and without expressing any further opinion, lest it prejudice the cause of either parties, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 11.9.2006 is set aside.

Parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge,Kaithal on 28.2.2008. The appeal shall be decided within a month of
the aforementioned date.

( RAJIVE BHALLA )
JUDGE

SUMIT MARWAHA Versus STATE OF PB ETC CWP 12998 of 2001

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

Date of Decision: 17.10.2007

Sumit Marwaha …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others …Respondents

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present:
Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.

RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue raised in
the present writ petition as to whether the candidates with qualification of Certificate Course in Physical Education from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, are eligible for the purpose of appointment to the post of P.T.I., has been considered by this Court in Samerjit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [C.W.P. No.8930 of 2001 (O and M)] decided on February 8, 2006 and it is held that the candidates with such qualification are eligible
for consideration.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in Samerjit Singh's case (supra).

(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge

SHAM SINGH AND ORS Versus STATE OF HRY AND ORS CWP 15062 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: Oct. 12,2007

Isham Singh and others .................................................... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ............................................ Respondents

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann

Present:
Mr.G.K. Chatrath, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S.Kundu, Addl. A.G. Haryana, with
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. C.L.Katyal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 8.
Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 9 to 19.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
This writ petition shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 15062, 15112, 15049, 13791, 14730, 15129, 13561 and 14782 of 2006 as common question of law and facts arises in all these writ petitions.

The petitioners have prayed that a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued quashing the entrance examination dated 20.8.2006 conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. The petitioners have also prayed that respondent No.2 be directed to hold re-examination for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer.

Respondent No.2 vide advertisement No. 5/2006 published in the newspaper on 7.5.2006 invited applications for various posts, beside 53 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers from the eligible candidates.

The educational qualification for the aforementioned post was as under:-

(i) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard.

(ii)A degree in Ayurvedic system of Medicine from any
University or institution recognised by the Government.

The petitioners applied for the said post and appeared in the examination conducted by respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioners that when they saw the question
papers, they were shocked to see that the question papers were set in Roman script (English language only) .

Mr. Chatrath, learned senior counsel for the petitioners,
contends that the study of Ayurvedic System of Medicines is based upon the vedic theories of treatment and ayurvedic medicines and all vedic research material is available in Hindi or Devnagri script. It has been contended that in all the Ayurvedic Medical Colleges the medium of instructions is Hindi and Sanskrit and even the Central Council of Indian Medicines, New Delhi, has prescribed the syllabus of Ayurvedic system in Hindi language but as the papers were set in Roman Script instead of Devnagri script, hence, the petitioners were unable to understand the Sanskrit `Shalokas' and words written in Roman script as a result of which they could not understand and answer the questions properly. Learned counsel has further contended that the usage of Roman script in the written examination is contrary to Articles 343, 345, 347 and 351 of the Constitution of India and further that Hindi in Devnagri script is the official language of the State of Haryana and hence the usage of Roman script was not permissible for writing Hindi/Sanskrit
and thus the setting of question papers in Roman script is ultra vires the act of the Legislature. Learned counsel contends that as per Article 343 of the Constitution of India the official language of the Union is Hindi in Devnagri script and what is permissible under the Constitution is that international form of Indian numerals can be used for the official purpose.

It is also permissible under the Constitution to use English language if the law provides for it but it is not permissible to use Roman or English language for writing Hindi/Sanskrit and only Devnagri script could be used for setting the question papers in Hindi or Sanskrit. Learned counsel further submits that as the syllabus for the study of Ayurvedic system of medicines is in Hindi, therefore, only Devnagri script could be used for setting the question papers and the petitioners could not have been asked questions in Hindi written in Roman script. It is submitted that the names of medicines and herbs have to be written in Devnagri script and as the petitioners have studied the BAMS in Devnagri script, therefore, they could not be expected to answer the questions in Hindi written in Roman and English script.

Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 14782 of 2006, has by and large argued on the same lines as Mr. Chatrath. Learned counsel contends that the Sanskrit Shalokas in the question papers were printed in Roman script, thus, making it impossible for the ordinary student to understand and answer the Sanskrit Shalokas in Roman script. It is contended that even a small grammatical mistake or expression changes the entire meaning and complexion of the Sanskrit Shalokas. It is further contended by the learned counsel that as the
candidates were not accustomed to read question papers in Roman script and to solve them in English language, hence, it was impossible for them to attempt the question paper in English language.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

It has been contended by Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, that only those candidates were entitled to take admission in BAMS Course who had passed 10+2 with English subject. The syllabus of certain subjects in BAMS like Pathology, Microbiology, Anatomy,
Physiology, Gynecology etc. is available in English only and the candidates of BAMS are required to study the aforementioned subjects in English language alone.

Learned counsel has further submitted that as per para 13 of the Ordinance of Kurukshetra University the candidates who have successfully completed BAMS course are required to undergo rotating internship in approved Government Civil Hospitals/Ayurvedic Hospitals in the State of Haryana for a period of one year before the degree of Ayurvedacharya (BAMS) is conferred upon them. It is submitted that in the Civil Hospitals the medicines are prescribed in English and in this way the
candidates get familiarity with allopathic medicines also which are read and prescribed in Roman script alone and, hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that they could not understand the question papers in which Roman script was used has to be rejected. Learned counsel further submits that a perusal of Ordinance of the Kurukshetra University (Annexure P-9) shows that “the medium of instruction and examination shall be Sanskrit and Hindi”. It is contended that the Ordinance only provides for medium of instructions and examination shall be Sanskrit and Hindi but it does not provide as to whether the script would be in Roman or Devnagri and, hence, there is no violation of the Kurukshetra University Calender. Learned counsel also submits that even the Regulations issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (Annexure P-8) provides that medium of instruction and examination shall be Sanskrit/Hindi or any other approved regional language but the same does not talk about as to in which script the examination would be conducted whether it would be Roman or Devnagri and, hence, there is no violation of the instructions issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine.

Counsel for the State has further submitted that the respondent Commission had prescribed the booklet in Hindi/Sanskrit language and had merely used the alphabets in English. In the multiple choice questions, the
answer is already mentioned in the booklet itself and the candidates are merely required to tick the correct option in the answer-sheet for which English language may not pose any writing or understanding problems.

It has also been contended that the posts were advertised for all India and candidates of the Southern States like Kerala, Tamilnadu and Karnataka could also apply and compete for the said posts and if Devnagri script would have been used in the examination then these candidates could have had difficulty in understanding and answering the questions, but in Roman script no one would have had any difficulty.

Learned counsel further submits that even in the year 2001 the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers were advertised by the Haryana Public Service Commission and Roman script was used in the said examination. It is contended that all the candidates who prepare for the examination like to see the question papers of the examinations earlier conducted for the same posts and, hence, no prejudice has been caused to any of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the private respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 9 to 19 have placed on record Annexure R1 along with their written statement according to which while conducting examination of BAMS IIIrd professional examination of `Kaya Chikitsa', Roman script was used.

Mr. Malik, counsel for respondent Nos. 9 to 19 has contended that Roman script was used in the screening test for the year 2007 conducted by HPSC for the same post. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Annexure R3 which is a Post Graduate Entrance Test where the candidates with BAMS qualification can apply for admission in MD Courses and in the said test also only Roman script is used. In the light of the aforementioned arguments counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The first argument raised by Mr. Chatrath is that using of
Roman script is contrary to Articles 343, 345, 347 and 351 of the Constitution of India. The aforementioned Articles are reproduced as under:-

343. Official Language of the Union:
(1)The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in
Devanagri script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement.

345. Official Language or Languages of a State:
Subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more
of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the Language or Languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State.

347. Special provision relating to language spoken by a section of the population of a State:

On a demand being made in that behalf the President may, if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the
population of a State desire the use of any language
spoken by them to be recognised by that State, direct that
such language shall also be officially recognised throughout that State or any part thereof for such purpose as he may specify.

351. Directive for development of the Hindi Language:

It shall be duty of the Union to promote the spread of the
Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a
medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in Schedule VIII, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.

Article 343 deals with the official language of the Union.

Article 345 deals with the official language of the State.

Article 347 deals with the special provision relating to language spoken by a section of population of a State and Article 351 deals with directive for development of Hindi language. So, the above Articles are regarding official language of the Union or the States but do not prescribe as to in which language the examination is to be conducted by Constitutional Authorities like the Haryana Public Service Commission or the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission. There is no provision under any Statutory Rules that the written test of Ayurvedic Medical Officer's post can be conducted in Hindi and not in English. In fact, some of the subjects like Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology, Laboratory Tests, Surgery etc. of the syllabus of BAMS are in English and are being taught in English language. The Ordinance of Kurukshetra University (Annexure P-9) provides that the medium of instructions and examination shall be Sanskrit and Hindi. However, it does not provide that the script to be used in the examination would be Devnagiri only. Apart from the above, even as per the Central Council of Indian Medicine's letter (Annexure P-8) which relates to the examination of BAMS it is not mandatory that the paper can only be set in Devnagiri script and not in Roman script. Hence, the respondents have committed no illegality in setting the question papers of BAMS in Roman script.

A perusal of Annexure R1, which has been annexed with the written statement of respondent No. 9 to 19, shows that Roman script has been used while conducting the BAMS IIIrd professional examination of Kaya Chikitsa. A perusal of Annexure R-2 shows that in the year 2001 also
Haryana Public Service Commission had conducted the examination for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer in Roman script and hence the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners could not understand the questions which were set in Roman script cannot be accepted. All the candidates have passed their 10+2 with English subject as a compulsory subject and, hence, they cannot raise the plea that they could not understand the questions written in Roman script. Further the candidates were asked to tick mark the correct answer in the answer-sheet in which multiple choice was given. The candidates were not required to write their answers in English language. All the questions were in Hindi/Sanskrit language and only the script was English. As all the students are already studying the usage of words written in Roman script during their studies in BAMS Haryana, on this score also there is no illegality in setting the question paper in Roman script which is the basis of English language and has been allowed by Article 343 of the Constitution even for official language in whole of Union.

A perusal of the advertisement issued by respondent No.2 in the year 2001 also shows that Roman script was used in the said examination.

All the candidates, when they prepare for the examinations, go through the question papers of the earlier years and, thus, it was amply clear to all the candidates that Roman script would be used in the examination for the post advertised. The question papers were set by expert bodies. The Experts are aware as to in which language or script the students can give their examination.

Apart from the above, all the petitioners have objected to
holding of the test by respondent No.2 after they had appeared in the examination and duly attempted the papers but were declared fail. The petitioners having competed and lost, cannot challenge the usage of Roman
script in the written examination.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed.

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )
JUDGE

( T.P.S.MANN )
JUDGE

MEENAKSHI SHARMA Versus VICE CHANCELLOR, KURUKSHETRA UNIV and ANS CWP 877 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 20.08.2007

Meenakshi Sharma. -----Petitioner
Vs.
Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and another.
-----Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

Present:
Mr. Vikas Awasthi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
This petition seeks quashing of order dated 5.9.2006,
Annexure P-4, to the effect that Entrance Test for admission to Ph.D. course was compulsory except for certain categories.

Case of the petitioner is that she is an advocate and did her graduation in Arts from Kurukshetra University and then also passed Bachelor of Laws (Professional) and Masters of Law from the Kurushetra University. She applied for Ph.D course and sought exemption from passing the Entrance Test by claiming parity with the categories which are exempted from passing the Entrance Test as per Circular dated 5.9.2006, Annexure P-4.
CWP. No.877 of 2007
The relevant Clause in the Circular is as under:-

1. The test for Ph.D. Course should be compulsory for
all, except the candidate who have qualified NET, regular
teachers of the Universities and its affiliated colleges, URS/ JRF/ SRF or paid scholars on a project in science or judges or reputed industrialists or journalists etc.

In the reply filed, the stand taken is that exemption has
been granted to certain categories on the recommendation made in the meeting of Dean and Faculties and Chairpersons held on 4.9.2006.

The said letter was modified by removing the words “Etc”.

Exemption of certain categories was based on intelligible differentia which had rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is well settled that mere inequality of treatment does not
per se amount to discrimination and for any public purpose, reasonable classification on a rational basis is permissible. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In re The Special Courts Bill AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 478, wherein after reviewing
the earlier decisions, propositions emerging from the earlier judgments were formulated in the following manner:-

4. The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is
not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all
persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of
differences of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws
would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and
there should be no discrimination between one person and
another if as regards the subject matter of the legislation
their position is substantially the same.

5. By the process of classification, the State has the power
of determining who should be regarded as a class for
purposes of legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular subject. This power, no doubt, in some degree is likely to produce some inequality; but if a law deals with the liberties of a number of well-defined classes, it not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons. Classification thus means segregation in classes which have a systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characteristics. It postulates a rational basis and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily.

6. The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.

7. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be
rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some
qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the
persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that differentia must have a
rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
Act.

8. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is
necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. In
short, while Article 14 forbids class discrimination by
conferring privileges or imposing liabilities upon persons
arbitrarily selected out of a large number of other persons
similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be
conferred or the liabilities proposed to be imposed, it does
not forbid classification for the purpose of legislation,
provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense
above mentioned.

9. If the legislative policy is clear and definite and as an
effective method of carrying out that policy a discretion is
vested by the statute upon a body of administrators or
officers to make selective application of the law to certain
classes or groups of persons, the statute itself cannot be
condemned as a piece of discriminatory legislation. In such
cases, the power given to the executive body would import
a duty on it to classify the subject-matter of legislation in
accordance with the objective inducted in the statute. If the
administrative body proceeds to classify persons or things
on a basis which has no rational relation to the objective of
the legislature, its action can be annulled as of dending
against the equal protection clause. On the other hand, if
the statute itself does not disclose a definite policy or
objective aud it confers authority on another to make
selection at its pleasure, the statute would be held on the face of it to be discriminatory, irrespective of the way in
which it is applied.

Applying the above propositions, we are of the view that it
cannot be held that classification for the purpose of grant of exemption is not based on any intelligible differentia which has no nexus to the object of exemption.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE

( AJAI LAMBA )
JUDGE

KARANJEET SINGH AND ORS Versus STATE OF HRY AND ORS CWP 740 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


DATE OF DECISION: July 19, 2007

KARANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN.

PRESENT:
MR. H.N. KHANDUJA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS.
MR. HARISH RATHEE, SR.DAG, HARYANA.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 vide which interview letters were not issued to the petitioners,` as the Diploma in Art and Craft acquired by the petitioners is not recognized by the Kurukshetra University and hence the petitioners have been held to be ineligible for the post of Art and Craft Teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have done their Diploma in Art and Craft from Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh, whereas petitioner No.3 has done his Diploma from Kurukshetra University.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Annexure R-1, R-2 and R-3 which have been appended to the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to contend that the Diploma of Art and Craft awarded by the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh, has been held to be recognized in the Haryana State by a Committee of three Members which was appointed in pursuance to the
directions given by this Court in CWP No.2555 of 2004 vide Annexure R-2.

Learned counsel further submits that the Diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University has also been held to be recognized by a Division
Bench of this Court in the judgement in CWP No.20630 of 2006 titled as
Suman Lata and others vs. State of Haryana and others.

Learned counsel for the State accepts the aforementioned factual position which is borne out from Annexures R-1 to R-3. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that against the judgement in Suman Lata's case (supra), a SLP has been preferred by the respondents in which notice of motion has been issued.

In view of the fact that the Diploma in Art and Craft from Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Traning, Chandigarh, has been recognized by the respondents vide Annexure R-3 and also in view of the fact that this Court has already held in Suman Lata's case (supra) that
Diploma acquired from Kurukshetra University would be valid for the
purpose of seeking appointment for the post of Art and Craft Teacher in the
State of Haryana, therefore, we quash the order Annexure P-3 and allow the writ petition. The petitioners have already been interviewed provisionally by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court. Now all the petitioners shall be treated to be eligible for the post of Art and Craft Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure P-2.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(T.P.S. MANN)
JUDGE

PAWAN Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP10112 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 12/7/2007

Pawan ...Petitioner
vs.
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

Present:
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT:
This petition challenges order dated 6.7.2007, Annexure P.5 intimating the petitioner that his Roll Number was not received from the University due to non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria i.e.,
45% marks in the qualifying examinations for being eligible for
admission to the B.Ed course.

Case of the petitioner is that he was found eligible for the B.Ed course in the Combined Entrance Test held on 16.7.2006 and after due verification, he was allotted respondent No.3-College
where he deposited Rs.35000/- as fee and also paid other charges.

He attended the classes but he did not receive the Roll Number.

He was informed that Roll Number had not been issued as he was not eligible for admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at this stage, the authorities are debarred from with-holding the Roll Number of the petitioner as the fact that the petitioner was not eligible, could be duly verified when he applied for admission. He had submitted the certificate and thereafter, no change has taken
place. He relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra,
AIR 1976 SC 376, Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and others, AIR 1989 SC 823 and judgment of this
Court in Mehnga Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1989 (2) RSJ 311.

In Shri Krishan (supra), the result of the petitioner was cancelled after he had appeared in the final examination. It was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the authorities had
ample opportunity to find out the defect in his candidature and his result could not be cancelled after he had appeared in the exam.

In Ashok Chand Singhvi (supra), the petitioner was admitted to B.E course and later on his candidature was cancelled on the ground that he had made application beyond the last date and that he was not eligible. It was held that he was eligible and mere fact that he applied beyond the last date, could not be enough to cancel his candidature.

In Mehnga Singh (supra), the candidate was admitted to B.Sc Medical Technology and after completing one year and nine months, his candidature was sought to be cancelled on the ground that he had furnished false certificate of being SC. It was
held that the same could not be done.

Learned counsel for the University opposed the submission and submitted that the petitioner fully knew that he was not eligible and merely because in the verification, it was not earlier found that the petitioner was not eligible, could be no ground to perpetuate the illegality. He submits that the judgments relied upon are distinguishable.

We find that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on peculiar facts and are distinguishable.

In Shri Krishan (supra), the University Statue in Clause 2(b) of the Kurukshetra Unviersity Calender, Volume I, Ordinance X referred to in para 6 of the judgment, provided that candidature could not be withdrawn after the examination. In para 6, it was observed:-

The last part of this statute clearly shows that the University could withdraw the certificate if the applicant had failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures. But this could be done only
before the examination. It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out
and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the appellant permission to appear...

In Ashok Chand Sighvi (supra), a finding was recorded in para 11 of the judgment that the candidate was eligible, which is as under:-

11.....Thus, it appears that the appellant had secured more than 60 per cent of marks in the aggregate in the Diploma examination and was not disqualified for admission in that regard.

It was also observed that the admission had not been given by
inadvertence or mistake but after considering the objection (Para 14).

In Mehnga Singh (supra), in para 3 of the judgment, it was made clear that the case was being decided without laying down any law, which is as under:-

3.....However, in the circumstances of this particular case, we are of the view that though we do not want to hold as a matter of law that the appellant is eligible to continue his studies on the
basis of the selection made as a Scheduled Caste candidate, on equitable grounds we should permit the candidate to complete the course especially because the appellant has passed the first year examination and had also completed nine months in the second year's course before the writ petition was filed and three months after the writ petition was filed in pursuance of the order of this Court and he has written the examination. It would be a
great hardship to the appellant if ultimately we have to retrace the whole step and declare that whatever he has done in the two years is not valid and even if we had to do it as required by law, we may not be justified in doing it without going into the question as to whether really the certificate given by the Tehsildar and counter-signed by the Additional District Magistrate was false or not....

In Central Airmen Selection Board and another v. Surender Kumar Das, AIR 2003 SC 240, the High Court had followed the judgment in Shri Krishan (supra). On appeal, the view taken by the High Court was reversed with the following observations:-

7. The question, therefore, is whether in a case of this nature the principle of promissory estoppel should be invoked. It is well known that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on
equitable principles. A person who has himself misled the authority by making a fake statement, cannot invoke this principle, if his misrepresentation misled the authority into taking
a decision which on discovery of the misrepresentation is sought to be cancelled. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he had passed the Intermediate examination. As we have found above, this finding of the High Court is erroneous contrary to record and therefore must be set aside.

In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary + 2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher
Secondary + 2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age.

However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application that he had passed the Higher Secondary + 2 examination was factually incorrect
and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel and the High Court was
clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgment and order of the High Court, therefore cannot be sustained.

In view of above, we are of the view that where a person fully knows his ineligibility but still he is able to get admission by the said ineligibility being over-looked, he cannot claim any right on the principle of estoppel, or otherwise from action being taken, though there is no straight-jacket formula and each case may have to be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the petitioner clearly knew that he was not eligible. His ineligibility was never condoned. In these circumstances, merely because the ineligibility was over-looked, the authorities could not be debarred from taking action when his ineligibility came to light.

Mere fact that earlier ineligibility was over-looked did not create
any estoppel. The petitioner has not given any explanation as to
why and how he applied even after knowing his ineligibility. In these circumstances, though the petitioner has suffered hardship, he also being responsible for the situation, we are unable to give any direction in his favour, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
(Ajai Lamba)
Judge

SURESH KUMAR Versus K U KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: January 25, 2007

Suresh Kumar ...........Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra and others ..........Respondents

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand

Present:
Mr.Vishnu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral)
The petitioner was desirous of seeking admission to the B.Ed. Course for the academic Sessions 2006-07. Accordingly, in response to an advertisement issued by the University, the petitioner applied for admission to the aforesaid course, well before the last date of submission of application forms. The eligibility conditions depicted in the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra indicate, inter-alia, that a
candidate who had qualified B.A. with Mathematics was eligible for the B.Ed course (for the Science and Mathematics course).

Since the petitioner did not possess the aforesaid qualification at the time of submission of his application form, he was treated as ineligible for admission to the B.Ed course.

Learned counsel for the petitioner,however, relies on note 3
(depicted in the prospectus) under the stipulation of qualifications for eligibility, to substantiate his eligibility for admission to the course. Note 3, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, being extracted hereunder:-

The candidates who have appeared/are appearing in final year examination of Graduation Course in April/May 2006 can also apply for admission to B.Ed. Course. They will be provisionally allowed to appear in the Common Entrance Test at their own risk and responsibility and they shall be eligible for admission only if they produce their Graduation for Post- Graduation result with prescribed percentage of marks by the respective date of counseling.

The fact of the matter is, that the petitioner appeared for the final year of the B.A. examination with Mathematics as one of the subjects in April/May,2006. When the result thereof was declared, he was placed under compartment in the subject of Mathematics. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner qualified the subject of Mathematics, for which he was placed under compartment, on 8.12.2006. It is also not a matter of dispute that the petitioner appeared for the third round of counselling for admission to the B.Ed course on 8.12.2006. The issue to be adjudicated upon is whether the petitioner is to be treated eligibile for admission to the B.Ed course in the facts and circumstances depicted hereinabove on the basis of note 3 extracted in the foregoing paragraph.

Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-University, that the petitioner did not qualify the examination for which he had appeared in April/May,2006, and as such, should be treated as ineligible, yet we are of the view that the same was not the requirement of note 3 extracted above.

The note made a candidate eligible for applying for admission to the B.Ed course if he had appeared in the final year examination of the Graduation course in April/May,2006.

This condition was clearly satisfied by the petitioner when he submitted his application form.

In view of the facts noticed herein above, there can be no dispute that the petitioner factually appeared in the final year examination
of the Graduation course in April/May,2006. There being no other
condition on the basis whereof he could be treated as ineligible,we are satisfied that the petitioner must be treated as eligible for B.Ed course to which he had applied. Undoubtedly he could only claim admission to the B.Ed course if he could produce his graduation result i.e. the final result of the BA examination, at the time of counselling. Facts narrated in the pleadings of the instant case reveal that the petitioners result was declared on 28.12.2006, and that he produced the result depicting that he had qualified BA. with Mathematics, on the date when he had appeared for counselling, in our view, he has to be treated as eligible for admission to the course under reference.

As a matter of fact, consequent upon declaration of the result, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared in the merit list, the
petitioner was admitted to the B.Ed course with respondent No.2.

The petitioner has been pursuing the said course with respondent No.2 since then. Since we find the petitioner eligible for admission, and since, the petitioner was within the merit list of the selected candidates, we hereby regularize the admission of the petitioner to the B.Ed course with respondent No.2.

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(J.S.Khehar)
Judge

(S.D.Anand)
Judge

NAVEEN MANDHAN Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 1039 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: 22.1.2007.

Naveen Mandhan and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Kurukshetra University and another ....Respondents.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND

PRESENT:
Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J.
All the three petitioners herein gained admission to the 4- Year Bachelor of Technology course in Engineering at the Shri Krishan Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kurukshetra, commencing in the years 2001 and 2002. During the pursuit of the aforesaid course, wherein examinations are held semester-wise, the petitioners could not clear all the papers and were required to reappear in one or the other of the papers.

At the time of admission to the Engineering Course, which is
regulated by the Ordinance issued under the Kurukshetra University Act, students were permitted to appear in any paper, of any semester, every six months. The aforesaid right of the petitioners was allegedly vested in them through clause 3(b) of the Ordinance issued under the Kurukshetra University Act. The grievance of the petitioners is against the notification dated 18.6.2003 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Controller of
Examinations, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, whereby clause 3(b) of the earlier Ordinance (which was applicable at the time of the admission of the petitioners to the Bachelor of Technology Course) was amended, whereby henceforth examinations in each semester were to be held only, of odd semesters and even semesters, in alternative semesters.

The effect of the aforesaid amendment was that the petitioners could reappear for the papers of the odd semesters in December/January and the papers of the even semesters in May/June. In sum and substance, the effect of the aforesaid amendment was that the earlier opportunity available to the petitioners, to appear in the reappear papers after every six months, was taken away, inasmuch as, the petitioners after the
amendment can appear for reappearing in a paper only once in a year.

The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Ordinance, as it existed at the time of admission of the petitioners to the Bachelor of Technology course, should regulate the aforesaid course till they complete the said course. In fact, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment effected through the notification dated 18.6.2003 (Annexure P-1) retrospectively alters the conditions of admission of the petitioners to the course, to which they were admitted.

The pointed issue canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners stands adjudicated upon by the Apex Court in Punjab
University V. Subash Chander and another, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1414, wherein the Apex Court, while not agreeing with the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court, observed as under:-

We do not agree with the learned Judges of the Full Bench of the High Court that there is any element of retrospectivity in the change brought about by the addition of the exception to R. 2.1 of the Calendar for the year 1970.

Retrospective” according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, in relation to Statutes etc. means “Operative with regard to past time”. The change brought about by the addition of the exception to Rule 2.1 does not say that it shall be operative with effect from any earlier date.

It is obviously prospective . It is not possible to hold that it is retrospective in operation merely because though introduced in 1970 it was applied to Subash Chander, respondent 1, who appeared for the final examination in 1974, after he had joined the course earlier in 1965. No promise was made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time of his admission in 1965 that there will be no alteration of the rule or regulation in regard to the percentage of marks required for passing any examination or award of grace marks and that the rules relating thereto which were in force at the time of his admission would continue to be applied to him until he finished his whole course. In the Calendar for 1979 we find the following at page 1:-

Notwithstanding the integrated nature of a course spread over more than one academic year, the regulations in force at the time a student joins a course shall hold good only for the examinations held during or at the end of the academic year.

Nothing in these regulations shall be deemed to debar the University from amending the regulations subsequently and the amended regulations, if any, shall apply to all students whether old or new.

This is as it should be, though there was no such provision in
the Calendar of 1965 when Subash Chander was admitted to
the course. It is admitted that it was introduced only in 1971.

The absence of such a provision in the Calendar of 1965 is of
no consequence.

The Apex Court, while recording the aforesaid observations in Punjab University's case (supra) relied upon an earlier decision rendered by it in B.N. Mishra V. State, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1567, wherein it observed as under:-

The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that the rule is retrospective and that no retrospective rule can be made. As we read the rule we do not find any retrospectivity in it. All that the rule provides is that from the date it comes into force the age fo retirement would be 55 years. It would therefore apply from that date to all Government servants, even though they may have been recruited before May 25, 1961 in the same way as the rule of 1957 which increased the age from 55 years to 58 years applied to all Government servants even though they were recruited before 1957. But it is urged that the proviso shows that the rule was applied retrospectively. We have already referred to the proviso which lays down that Government servants who had attained the age of 55 years on or before June 17, 1957 and had not attained the age of 58 years on May 25, 1961 would be
deemed to have been retained in service after the date of superannuation, namely 55 years. This proviso in our opinion does not make the rule retrospective; it only provides as to how the period of service beyond 55 years should be treated in view of the earlier rule of 1957 which was being changed by the rule of 1961. Further the second order issued on the same day also clearly shows that there was no retrospective operation of the rule, for in actual effect no Government servant was retired before the date of new rule i.e. May 25, 1961 and all of them were continued in service up to December 31, 1961 and were therefore to retire on reaching the age of superannuation according to the old rule. We are, therefore, of opinion that the new rule reducing the age of retirement from 58 years to 55 years cannot be said to be retrospective. The proviso to the new rule and the second notification are only methods to tide over the difficult situation which would arise in the public service if the new
rule was applied at once and also to meet any financial objection arising out of the enforcement of the new rule. The new rule therefore, cannot be struck down on the ground that it is retrospective in operation.

In view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Punjab University's case (supra), as well as, in B.N. Mishra's case (supra), the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be accepted.

The instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )
Judge

( S.D. Anand )
Judge

MADHU BALA Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 19451 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


Date of decision December 15, 2006

Madhu Bala .......Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra through its Registrar and others ........Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. BHALLA

Present:-
Sh. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Sh. Lalit Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.

Viney Mittal, J (Oral)
At the outset Dr. Balram Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Kurukshetra University informs the Court that respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are lower in merit than the petitioner and to that
extent the grievance made by the petitioner is justified, inasmuch as, the petitioner has been declined the admission by the College-respondent No.2.

However, Sh. Gupta further states that the reasons for declining admission to the petitioner shall have to be inquired into by the University authorities.

Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondent- University, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra-respondent No.1 to inquire into the admission of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 made in B. Ed course by the College-respondent No.2 and also find out the reasons on account of which the petitioner has been declined admission whereas the persons lower in merit than her have been so admitted.

The aforesaid inquiry shall be conducted by the Registrar of the Kurukshetra University-respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks
from the date, the parties put in appearance before him.

The petitioner as well as the representative of the College-respondent No.2 is directed to appear before the Registrar, Kurukshetra University on January 8, 2007 at 10.00 A.M. along with all the relevant record. A communication in this regard shall also be sent by the Registrar as well as by the College, to respondent Nos. 4 to 10 who shall be served through the Principal of the College.

In the course of inquiry, the petitioner, a representative of the College as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 10 shall be permitted to
participate and shall be heard.

Since the merit position of the petitioner is not being disputed by the University, therefore, in the mean time the petitioner shall be admitted provisionally to the B. Ed course in the College-respondent No.2 forthwith.

For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner shall submit the requisite application along with fee with the College on December 21, 2006.

However, we make it clear that the admission granted to the petitioner shall be wholly provisional and subject to the final outcome of the inquiry conducted by the Registrar.

Disposed of accordingly.

A copy of the order be given dasti under the attestation of the Special Secretary attached to the Bench.

(VINEY MITTAL)
JUDGE

(H.S.BHALLA)
JUDGE

VINEY SAINI Versus VICE CHANCELLOR KURUKSHETRA UNIV and ANR CWP 19761 of 2006

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Tuhi Ram and another ------Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and another -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
Learned counsel requests for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to avail any other remedy in accordance with the
law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforementioned.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 19769 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Narain Das ------Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. H.N.Khanduja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
This petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order annexure P-2 dated 26.7.2006, whereby petitioner has been rendered surplus on account of policy of
rationalization, wrongly and transferred to Government High School, Samaspur Majra, District Jhajjar from Government Senior Secondary School, Meharana (Jhajjar) due to clerical mistake and contrary to the transfer policy and directing the respondents to cancel the impugned transfer order dated 26.7.2006 and retain the petitioner in Government
Senior Secondary School, Mehrana (Jhajjar).

For the relief claimed in the instant petition, the petitioner has pursued the matter through respondent No.3, who had sent letter (Annexure P-4) dated 18.7.2006 as well as letter dated 29.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) sent by the Principal of the School for the cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner.

Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognizance of
letter (Annexure P-4) dated 18.7.2006 and letter (Annexure P-5) dated 29.7.2006 sent by the Principal and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to respondent No.2. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be meritorious, and decided in his favour then the benefit accruing to the petitioner shall be disbursed within a further period of one month thereafter. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 19812 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Raj Kumar ------Petitioner.
Versus
The Vice Chancellor Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and another -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Kirti Kumar , Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
Learned counsel requests for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to avail any other remedy in accordance with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforementioned.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19824 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.C.Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stats that the work charge service of the petitioner has not been counted for qualifying service for the purpose of revised pension Notice of motion for 13.2.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE
Civil Writ Petition No. 19785 of 2006.
Present:-
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue raised in the instant petition is pending consideration before this Court in C.W.P.No. 17837 of 2006, which is posted for hearing on 24.1.2007.

Notice of motion for 24.1.2007. Although, we are of the view that the order of the
Liquidator dated 21.8.2006 is appealable under Section 114 of the Haryana Co-operation Society Act, 1984.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19809 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.K.Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that services of the petitioners has been terminated, merely on the ground that they are possessing the two years diploma in Elementary Teachers Training Course from Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education.

Notice of motion for 19.12.2006.

Dasti process.

Status quo regarding service of the petitioners shall be maintained.

To be listed along with C.W.P.No. 15462 of 2006.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19797 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Notice of motion for 13.2.2007.

Ms. Ranu Bala Sharma, Central Government Counsel, who is present in the Court , accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents and requests for some time to file reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall hand over four copies of the writ petition to Ms. Sharma today itself personally, failing which the writ petition shall be deemed to be dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
Anoop JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 19846 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Viney Saini ------Petitioner.
Versus
The Vice Chancellor Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and another -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Kirti Kumar , Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
Learned counsel requests for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to avail any other remedy in accordance with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforementioned.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19768 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his son was promoted as Sub Inspector vide order dated 7.1.2003 from retrospective date i.e. with effect from 1.12.2001. His son has died on 17.9.2002 and as such, he could not actually take over the charge on the post of Sub Inspector. The relief of family pension has been denied to him.

Although, his son would be deemed to be working as Sub Inspector and has discharged the duty as Sub Inspector from 1.12.2001, though he has died on 17.1.2002 (17.9.2002) ?.

Notice of motion for 23.2.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19764 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. P.L.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

The prayer made in this writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.5.1995 (Annexure P-2) whereby the persons junior to the petitioner are alleged to have been promoted as clerk . It has been further pleaded that the order dated 3.7.2006, dismissing the representation filed by the petitioner for promotion with effect from the aforementioned date i.e. 30.5.1995, be also quashed. It is the admitted position that the petitioner has been promoted on the post of clerk vide order dated 16.1.1998 (Annexure P-3) without raising any objection against his delayed promotion with effect from the date his alleged junior has been promoted. The petitioner has content with his promotion in 1998. It is well settled that filing of representation would not lead to accrual of cause of action has been held by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10. Even a suit on such cause of action would not be maintainable after a period of eight years.

The limitation have provided a suit can easily to permit the filing of written statement as held in Supreme Court State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1006.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 19798 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Lakhan Lal Sharma ------Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
The prayer in the writ petition is for directing the respondents to release the arrears of pay of the petitioner from the
period of 27.11.1997 to 31.12.1999 and releasing the arrears of GPF Rs. 117425 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from Municipal Committee, Hodal against their service under respondent
No.3.

For the aforementioned relief claimed in the present writ petition, the petitioner has already represented to the respondents vide representations dated 12.3.2004 and 20.12.2005 (Annexures P-1
and P-2) respectively. Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognizance of the representations sent by the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be meritorious and decided in his favour, then the benefit accruing to the petitioner shall be given within a further period of two months thereafter. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is
passed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 19810 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Subhash Chander Mehta ------Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the tentative seniority list of HES-II (Principal only) as on 1.6.2005
(Annexure P-5) in the grade of Rs.8000-13500 and order dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2 with the prayer to direct respondent No.1 to 4 after correction in the seniority list the name of the petitioner as per his seniority. and to give him all consequently benefits .

For the aforementioned relief claimed in the present writ petition, the petitioner has already represented to respondent No. 3 vide representation Annexure P-14.

Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to take cognizance of the representation sent by the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be meritorious and decided in his favour, then the benefit accruing to the petitioner shall be given within a further period of two months thereafter. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 19773 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Sunder Lal ------Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
The prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing the withholding of amount of Rs. 1,36,826/- from his gratuity vide order
dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P-2). It has also been further prayed that order dated 13.11.2006( Annexure P-5) and order dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) withdrawing his second ACP and to reduce his pay scale. Further a direction has also been sought to the respondents to direct to restore second ACP scale to the petitioner without effecting any recovery. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and othersVs. Ram Saroop Ganda and others (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20264 of 2004 ).

Notice of motion .

Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and
submits that the State will comply with the instructions dated 23.11.2006 which instruct all the officers to grant the benefit of the judgment in Ram Saroop Ganda's case (supra) irrespective of the fact whether the person is a party to the proceedings or not.

Therefore, learned State counsel points out that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a representation by placing reliance on the aforementioned instructions.

In view of the above, we deem it just and proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a detailed
representation making reference to instructions dated 23.11.2006 which
seek to implement the order of the Supreme Court in Ram Saroop Ganda's case (supra )without any distinction to all the employees. The petitioner may file representation within a period of two weeks from today with registered A.D.

Cover and the same be disposed of as per the aforesaid instructions within period stipulated in decision of SLP.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 17181 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.
On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 18523 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006. To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 17167 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 17640 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Anurag Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19661 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19646 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 3385 of 2004.

Present:-
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent, adjourned to 30.1.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 17204 of 2006.

Present:-
None for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 30.1.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 17175 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Chubder Pal ------Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
Learned counsel requests for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file fresh one on account of certain developments and certain material facts which have now come to the knowledge of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 17174 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Baljit Singh ------Petitioner.
Versus
The Ambala Central Coop.

Bank and another ------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Rajbir Sherawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Dalal,Advocate, for the respondents.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a copy of the order dated 1.12.2006 showing that the transfer
order impugned in this petition by the petitioner has been withdrawn.

The same has been taken on record as Mark 'A'.

Accordingly, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 17182 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 19394 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 18297 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On request, adjourned to 15.12.2006.

To be shown in the urgent list.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 13869 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.C.Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

Learned State counsel seeks time to file written statement. Let the reply be filed a week before the adjourned date with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

List for arguments on 7.5.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.
Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the respondents request for some time to file reply. Let reply be filed a week before the adjourned date with a copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

List for arguments on 13.3.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 9838 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that copy of the reply has not been supplied to him till today. The same has now been handed over in the Court to the learned counsel for the respondents.

List for arguments on 6.2.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

C.M.No. 19543 and 19552 of 2006

Civil Writ Petition No. 12457 of 2006
(O and M).

Present:-
Mr. J.S.Manipur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana for
respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for
respondent 3.
Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate, for
respondents 4 and 5.

A copy of the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Education Department is taken on record.

List for arguments on 18.12.2006.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 12331 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr.H.N. Khanduja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 19.1.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 8808 of 2006.
Present:-
Mr.Jitin Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

On the request made by the learned counsel for the respondents, adjourned to 2.2.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 6166 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Lal Singh, Advocate, for
Ms. Raupinder K. Thind, Advocate, for
the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment on the ground that arguing counsel is unwell.

The hearing of the case is deferred to 30.1.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 5735 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.
Heard. Admitted.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 3782 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.
Mr. Sanja Vashisth, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.

Our order dated 14.7.2006 has not been complied with despite adjourning the case twice as nothing has been brought on the record as to whether the medical certificate of Smt. Raj Kumari respondent No.4 showing that she is 75% physically handicapped, has not been produced which was ordered to be produced within two days on 14.7.2006.

Accordingly, we direct respondents 1 and 2 to produce the report of P.G.I.M.S., Rahtak without any further delay. If necessary, respondent No.4 may also be subjected to medical examination to assess her disability.

The expenses of the medical treatment are to be borne by the State for the time being. If the certificate Annexure-A is
found to be correct and consequent report of P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak, then the expenses are to be incurred by the petitioner, otherwise the expenses shall be charged from the respondent.

Adjourned to 18.12.2006.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 19764 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Braham Dutt ------Petitioner.
Versus
Director Haryana Institute of Public
Administration, Gurgaon -------Respondent.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. P.L.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
The prayer made in this writ petition is for quashing the promotion order dated 30.5.1995 (Annexure P-2) whereby the persons junior to the petitioner is alleged to have been promoted as Clerk . It has further been pleaded that the order dated 3.7.2006 dismissing the representation filed by the petitioner claiming promotion with effect from the aforementioned date i.e. 30.5.1995 be also quashed. It is admitted position that the petitioner has been promoted on the post of clerk vide order dated 16.1.1998 (Annexure P-3) without raising any objection against his delayed promotion with effect from the date respondent No.2 the alleged junior has been promoted. Since the petitioner's work and conduct was found good, he was given promotion in 1998. It is well settled that filing of representation would not lead to acrual of cause of action as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Rathore Vs. State of M.P.
AIR 1990 SC 10. Even a suit of such cause of action, would not be maintainable after a period of eight years. The limitation have also been provided for filing a suit and also to permit the filing of written statement, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bhai Lal Bhai, 1964 SC 1006.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 6051 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. R.K.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G.Haryana.

Learned counsel for the respondents is permitted to file reply in the Registry.

Reply be filed in the Registry within two days with an advance copy to the counsel opposite.

List for arguments on 8.3.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 5006 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for
Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents is permitted to file reply in the Registry.

Reply be filed in the Registry within two days with an advance copy to the counsel opposite.

List for arguments on 30.1.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

Civil Writ Petition No. 7385 of 2006.

Present:-
Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana, for
respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

On request, adjourned to 18.1.2007.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 13370 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

M/S. Liberty Shoes Limited and others
------Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and another -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. H.R. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana, for
the respondents.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
A copy of the order dated 13.12.2006 has been placed on record, according to which, the matter has been referred to the
Labour Court, Panipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that nothing survives in this petition for adjudication of proceedings and the same be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

Ordered accordingly.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

RAJ KUMAR Versus VICE CHANCELLOR KURUKSHETRA UNIV and ANR CWP 19812 of 2006

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.


Date of Decision: 14.12.2006.

Raj Kumar ------Petitioner.
Versus
The Vice Chancellor Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and another -------Respondents.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.KUMAR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Kirti Kumar , Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.Kumar ,J.(Oral)
Learned counsel requests for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to avail any other remedy in accordance with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforementioned.

( M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

( M.M.S. BEDI )
JUDGE

KIRAN BALA AND ANR Versus VICE CHANCELLOR KURUKSHETRA UNIV and ORS CWP 18813 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: November 28, 2006

Kiran Bala and another ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others …..Respondents

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

PRESENT:
Shri Rameshwar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).
The petitioners have challenged the selection of certain students in B.Ed course. The aforesaid admitted candidates have not been impleaded as party in the present petition.

Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action by impleading all the necessary parties.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as aforesaid.

(Viney Mittal)
Judge

(H.S. Bhalla)
Judge

GHANSHAM DASS TANEJA Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR CWP 17071 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


Date of decision 28.10.2006

Ghansham Dass Taneja.....Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another....Respondents

Coram:-
Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.KUMAR.
Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.S.BEDI.

Present:
Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr.Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Shreesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

M.M.KUMAR, J
This petiton filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays for issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the statutory appeal dated 24.4.2006 (Annnexure P-6) filed by the
petitioner which is still pending.

Notice of motion.
Mr. Shreesh Gupta, who is the Standing Counsel for the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, accepts notice on the asking of the Court. A copy of the writ petition has been handed over to him.

With the consent of the parties, the writ
petition is taken up for final disposal, as no reply is required to be filed in the facts and circumstances and the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant
petiton.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we deem it just and appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider and decide the statutory appeal, dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P-6), filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is supplied to him. It shall be appreciated, if a detailed speaking order is passed after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

Petition stands disposed of in the above
terms.

Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE

JAI KISHAN Versus KKR UNIVERSITYKKR and ANR CWP 10361 of 2005

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Date of Decision: 26.10.2006

Jai Kishan ---Petitioner
Vs.
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another ---
---Respondents

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.Kumar
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.Bedi

Present:
Mr.J.S.Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1

M.M.Kumar, J.(Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of certain developments after filing of the instant writ petition, this writ petition requires to be re-filed by challenging those orders and he prays for withdrawal of the instant writ petition with liberty to file fresh one to challenge the subsequent orders passed in the matter.

Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to file fresh one by challenging the orders subsequently passed.

However the interim order dated 12.7.2005 is allowed to continue for two weeks from today which is to the effect that the services of the petitioner is not to be terminated or could be replaced by the other contract employee.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE

BHIM SINGH AND ORS Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 16760 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


DATE OF DECISION : 23.10.2006

Bhim Singh and others ......PETITIONER
VERSUS
Kurukshertra University through its Registrar and others ......RESPONDENTS

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

PRESENT:
Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

M.M.KUMAR,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners requests for withdrawal of the writ petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

( M.M.KUMAR )
JUDGE

( M.M.S.BEDI )
JUDGE

S R MEMORIAL SIKSHA SAMITI Versus STATE OF HRY AND ORS CWP 15195 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


DATE OF DECISION: October 19, 2006

S.R. Memorial Siksha Samiti ….Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others …..Respondents

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

PRESENT:
Shri Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Ajai Gulati, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1.
Shri Balram K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Shri Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).
Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 has
been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Shireesh Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has produced before us a copy of the communication dated October 18, 2006 issued by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra to the petitioner College intimating that the faculty members selected by the College were not possessing the qualifications as per Kurukshetra University norms, although the qualifications possessed by the faculty members were as per NCTE norms.

The aforesaid communication further shows that the
adoption of latest NCTE qualifications by the University is under consideration. The aforesaid communication produced before us is taken on record as Annexure A.

Shri Aman Chaudhary, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner informs the Court that as per the information of the petitioner, the University is going to adopt NCTE norms in a very near future and, therefore, prays for a short adjournment.

Adjourned to November 3, 2006.

A copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Special Secretary attached with this Court.

(Viney Mittal)
Judge

(H.S. Bhalla)
Judge

POOJA Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA CWP 16624 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


DATE OF DECISION: October 19, 2006

Pooja ….Petitioner
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra …..Respondent

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

PRESENT:
Shri R.S.Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).
After arguing the case for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent University for requisite relief or for any other relief, which may be available to the
petitioner.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as aforesaid.

(Viney Mittal)
Judge

(H.S. Bhalla)
Judge

S P SINHA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY and ANR CM 13390 of 2006 and C W P 492 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2006

Dr. S.P. Sinha …..Petitioner
Vs.
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others …..Respondents

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the non-applicant/ respondents.

M.M. KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
Notice of the application.

Mr. V.S. Rana, the briefing counsel of Mr. S.C. Sibal, Senior
Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
view that the earlier non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner in the instant case is not intentional and not to gain any benefit. There are adequate reasons given in the application for restoring the case.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

With the agreement of the parties, arguments have been heard.

It is admitted position that all the dues of the petitioners have been released to him except an amount of Rs.25,000/- out of G.P.F. account. The aforementioned amount has been with-held on the ground that he has caused delay in issuing ‘No Objection Certificate’ to one Dr.R.L. Sharma, who has filed Civil Suit by impleading respondent University as well as petitioner as defendants No.1 and 2 respectively. The findings recorded by the civil Court in its judgment and decree dated December 22, 2001 do not show that the petitioner has been held liable for any delay in issuance of No Objection Certificate to Dr.R.L. Sharma.

It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner had retired on September 30, 2000 whereas Dr.R.L. Sharma had retired on December 31, 1999. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been taken on record as mark ‘A’. It has been pointed out that a perusal of para 10 of the judgment would show that a committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor consisting of Senior Officer of the University who met on June 19, 2001 in the room of the Chairman, Department of Geography and Dr. R.L. Sharma, handed over all the keys to the Committee and an inventory of the items was prepared. The document was signed by the Registrar, Chairman of the Department of Geography, Finance Officer, along with other officers of the University. It has been concluded that the document shows that all the left keys with the plaintiff- Dr. R.L. Sharma, were handed over on that date i.e. June 19, 2001 to the Committee. There is no finding given by the civil Court holding the petitioner responsible in his individual capacity for delay in the issuance of
No Objection Certificate despite the fact that the petitioner was also defendant No.2 in the aforementioned suit.

In view of the above, we find that there is no justification for the respondent University to with-hold an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the G.P.F. account of the petitioner, especially once the parties have litigated in the civil Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is partially allowed and a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to release a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is a balance amount from the G.P.F. amount. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Nothing said herein shall affect the merits of the appeal, namely, R.S.A. No. 4795 of 2003, which is filed by the respondent University and is pending consideration against the judgment and decree dated December 22, 2001, mark ‘A’, as upheld by the District Judge.

(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE

UMESH KUMAR AND ORS Vs KKR UNI KKR AND ORS CWP 3081 of 2005

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh


Date of Decision: September 25, 2006

Umesh Kumar and others …Petitioners
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others …Respondents

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT:
Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 3.

JUDGMENT
M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the conditions imposed in their appointment letters limiting the appointment for a fixed period. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue till regular appointments are made in
CWP No. 3081 of 2005 accordance with law. It has still further been prayed that salary and allowances, which are being paid to the regular employees, be also paid to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment.

Having perused the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that as far as the first prayer of the petitioners is concerned, no such directions could now be issued in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as a detailed judgment of this Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2006 (2) PLR 474. Therefore, the instant petition, in so far as, it seeks issuance of direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue till the regular appointments are made, is dismissed.

Having dismissed the petition to the above extent, we take notice of the fact that the respondents have been filling up posts on ad hoc basis for the last over 6-7 years, which would amply highlight that work of the post exists. The petitioners have been paid salary for less than those who are regularly appointed although they
might be discharging similar or same duties. Therefore, we are
inclined to issue direction in accordance with the view taken by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (supra). In para 55 of Umadevi’s case (supra) a limited relief has been given to the petitioners. Firstly, it has been held that the daily wage employees shall be given the minimum of the pay scale and secondly if sanctioned posts are vacant, the State was to take immediate steps for filling up those posts by a regular process of selection and those who are working on daily wages were to be granted permission to compete by waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment. It has further been held that some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time was to be granted. Para 55 of the judgment in Umadevi’s case (supra) reads as under:-

“ 55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in
government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from
which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so.

We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages
equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue
directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the
direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court Article 142 of the
Constitution to do justice to them.”

In view of the aforementioned view expressed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, we direct the respondents to grant to the petitioners minimum of the pay scale given to the regular employees of their cadre. The petitioners are held entitled to arrears for three years two months (38 months) preceding the date of filing the petition.

We further hold that if sanctioned posts are lying vacant, the respondents shall take immediate steps for filling up those posts
by a regular process of selection in accordance with the rules and law.

In case the petitioners fulfil all other qualifications of the rules, they should also be permitted to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and grant him some weightage in lieu of number of years of service rendered by him. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is supplied to the respondents.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE

RAMPHAL MANN ETC Vs KUK ETC CWP 3794 of 2005

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh


Date of Decision: September 25, 2006

Dr. Ramphal Mann and others …Petitioners
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others …Respondents

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT:
Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 4.

JUDGMENT
M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing order dated 26.2.2005 (P- 14) qua the petitioners as also the action of the respondents in limiting the appointment for a fixed period. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue till regular appointments are made in accordance with law. It has further been prayed that salary and allowances, which are being paid to the regular employees, be also paid to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment.

Having perused the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that as far as the first prayer of the petitioners is concerned, no such directions could now be issued in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as a detailed judgment of this Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2006 (2) PLR 474. Therefore, the instant petition, in so far as, it seeks issuance of direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue till the regular appointments are made, is dismissed.

Having dismissed the petition to the above extent, we take notice of the fact that the respondents have been filling up posts on ad hoc basis for the last over 6-7 years, which would amply highlight that work of the post exists. The petitioners have been paid salary for less than those who are regularly appointed although they might be discharging similar or same duties.

Therefore, we are inclined to issue direction in accordance with the view taken by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (supra). In para 55 of Umadevi’s case (supra) a limited relief has been given to the petitioners. Firstly, it has been held that the daily wage employees shall be given the minimum of the pay scale and
secondly if sanctioned posts are vacant, the State was to take
immediate steps for filling up those posts by a regular process of
selection and those who are working on daily wages were to be
granted permission to compete by waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment. It has further been held that some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time was to be granted. Para 55 of the judgment in Umadevi’s case (supra) reads as under:-

“ 55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in
government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from
which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so.

We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division
Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in
government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts
by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the
recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.”

In view of the aforementioned view expressed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, we direct the respondents to grant to the petitioners minimum of the pay scale given to the regular employees of their cadre. The petitioners are held entitled to arrears for three years two months (38 months) preceding the date of filing the petition to the extent of the period the petitioners were in service.

We further hold that if sanctioned posts are lying vacant, the respondents shall take immediate steps for filling up those posts
by a regular process of selection in accordance with the rules and law.

In case the petitioners fulfil all other qualifications of the rules, they should also be permitted to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and grant him some weightage in lieu of number of years of service rendered by him.

The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is supplied to the respondents.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE

SUNIL KUMAR Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR CWP 14208 of 2006


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: September 22, 2006

Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner
Vs.
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another
…..Respondents

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

Present:-
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M. KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite efforts made, the criteria has not been supplied to him and it is likely to take some more time. The criteria is required to be placed on record as per the order dated September 7, 2006.

After hearing the learned counsel, we allow the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh one after obtaining all necessary documents and adding the pleadings to that effect.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made.

(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE

PIRTHI SINGH Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 7350 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: 8.9.2006

Prithi Singh Sahu ...Petitioner
versus
Kurukshetra University and others ... Respondents

CORAM:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh.
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover.

Present:
Mr.S.S.Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Monga, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate
Mr.Vinod Arya, Advocate for respondent No.7.

UMA NATH SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Clause 6(d) of Chapter 1 of Kurukshetra University Calendar, for different exigencies different types of arrangements have been provided for.

We have considered the provision so also the submission. As per the said provision, the University will come into picture only when all the formalities for holding election are complete and there is no complaint whatsoever, whereas in the instant case, 505 members have lodged complaints about serious irregularities in the voters' list and an enquiry was
conducted under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, and thereafter, the Administrator has been appointed. The voters' list was not found to be valid.

Further in the instant case, the election was scheduled to be held but because of the irregularities in the voters list, it could not take place. As the writ petition
involves the disputed questions of facts, we are not inclined to accept it.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

( UMA NATH SINGH )
JUDGE

( MAHESH GROVER )
JUDGE

DR.BHIM SINGH DAHIYA Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CWP 7206 of 1988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


Date of Decision:- 28th .02.2011

Dr.Bhim Singh Dahiya ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Present:-
Mr.Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Augustine George Masih, J.
Petitioner in this writ petition is a former Member of a Legislative Assembly, Haryana, to which he was elected in May 1982 from 42 Rohar Assembly Constituency, District Sonepat and continued as such for a full term of 5 years till the general elections were held on 17.6.1987.

He claimed pension under the Haryana Legislative Assembly (Allowances
and Pension of Members) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975
Act') which was denied to him on the ground that he was drawing s.3500/-
per month as salary from Kurukshetra University vide order dated 15.12.1987 (Annexure P-2) and, thus, not entitled to pension as an ex-
MLA under the provisions of Section 7-A (2) of the 1975 Act. The petitioner, thus, filed the present writ petition challenging the vires of
Sections 7-A (2) (iii) and 7-A (3) of the 1975 Act being violative of Articles
14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. He had further claimed therein that
the denial of pension to the petitioner under Section 7-A (2) (iii) of the 1975 Act was misconceived as he was not covered under any of the categories enumerated therein which disentitles a person to pension. The
petitioner was a Professor of English in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, prior to his election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and after he ceased to be so, he rejoined his service. The Kurukshetra University would not fall within any of the categories mentioned in Section 7-A (2) of the Act which disentitles a person who is employed on salary under the Government(s) or authorities as specified therein, to be not entitled to pension under the 1975 Act.

Upon notice having been issued, the respondents have filed reply wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as his case was covered by the term “local authority” as provided under Section 7-A (2) (iii) of the Act which disentitles a person to claim pension.

University is covered by the term “local authority” and as the petitioner was employed on salary with Kurukshetra University, he was not entitled to pension under the 1975 Act. It has further been stated that the petitioner on his retirement from Kurukshetra University from the post of
Professor in English with effect from 30.4.1998 on attaining the age of
superannuation has been granted pension with effect from 1.5.1998 as per the amended provisions of the 1975 Act and is not entitled to any further benefit.

Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset gave up the challenge to the vires which has been posed to Sections 7-A (2) (iii) and 7- A (3) of the 1975 Act by stating that with the amendment of Section 7-A (3) of the 1975 Act, he does not have any grouse left qua this Section as he has
been granted pension after his retirement from the University with effect
from 1.5.1998 which earlier had disentitled him as per the unamended
provisions.

As regards Section 7-A (2) (iii) of the 1975 Act, he contends that even if the provisions are taken to be valid, the case of the petitioner being not covered under the same, the claim of the petitioner could not have been denied by the respondents vide order dated 15.12.1987 (Annexure P-2). He contends that local authority has not been defined under the 1975 Act and, therefore, in the absence of such a definition, the provisions of General Clauses Act as applicable to Haryana, will apply, according to which, 'University' is not included in the local authority. The petitioner being not covered by the above provision, would be entitled to the benefit of pension under the 1975 Act.

On the other hand, counsel for the State vehemently contends that the Kurukshetra University came into existence under a Statute. It being a statutory Authority, would be covered by the term “local authority” as contained in Section 7-A (2) (iii). He further contends that University is a State as held by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Sinha vs. V.N.Singh and others, AIR 1968 Patna 3 and, thus, the petitioner who is employed with the statutory authority of the State would be covered by the term State as well as local authority which would disentitle the petitioner to his claim for pension. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

Although the petitioner had challenged the vires of Sections 7- A (2) (iii) and 7-A (3) of the 1975 Act in the writ petition but in the light of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner whereby the challenge to the vires have been dropped, in normal course, as per the High Court Rules and Orders, the challenge to the vires being no more, the matter should have been heard by a learned Single Judge for adjudication but keeping in view the fact that the case is old one and further delay is not
brooked especially where the petitioner is claiming pension, we have taken up the case for final disposal with the consent of counsel for both the parties.

The facts as stated above are not in dispute in this case. As of now, the petitioner is drawing pension regularly with effect from 1.5.1998 under the 1975 Act. In the light of the above, the dispute has narrowed down to the claim of the petitioner for pension from the date he ceased to be a Member of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha i.e. July 1987 till 30.4.1998 as from 1.5.1998 onwards, the petitioner has been granted pension by the
respondents.

The decision on this dispute is dependent upon the interpretation of the term “local authority” as finds mentioned in Section 7- A (2) (iii) of the 1975 Act. Section 7-A (1) and (2) read as follows:-

7A. Pension. - (1) Every person shall be paid a pension of five thousand rupees per mensem if he has served as a member for a period not exceeding five years and an additional pension of one thousand rupees per mensem for every additional year or part thereof exceeding a period of five years and if the period of the first membership falls less than the term of five years of the Assembly, it will be treated as full period of five years for the purpose of pension :

Provided that family pension shall be admissible, as may be prescribed, to surviving spouse and after his or her death to the children (up to the age of eighteen years) of members who had been drawing pension under this
Act.

(2) Where any person entitled to pension under subsection (1)-

(i) is elected to the office of the President or Vice- President or is appointed to the office of the Governor of any State or the Administrator of any Union Territory; or

(ii) becomes a member of the Council of States or the House of the People or any Legislative Assembly of a State or Union Territory or any Legislative Council of a State or the Metropolitan Council of Delhi constituted under section 3 of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966; or

(iii) is employed on a salary under the Central Government or any State Government, or any corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or any State Government, or any local authority or becomes
otherwise entitled to any remuneration from such Government, corporation or local authority, such person shall not be entitled to any pension under sub-section (1) for the period during which he continues to hold such office or as such member, or is so employed, or continues to be entitled to such remuneration :

Provided that where the salary payable to such person for holding such office or being such member or so employed, or where the remuneration referred to in clause (iii) payable to such person, is, in either case, less than the pension payable to him under sub-section (1), such person shall be entitled only to receive the balance as pension under that sub-section.

A perusal of the above would show that sub-section (1) of Section 7-A grants pension to the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Sub-section 2 is a non abstante clause which disentitles a Member of the
Legislative Assembly to any pension under sub-section (1). Clause (iii) of
sub-section (2) deals with a Member of the Legislative Assembly who is
employed on a salary under the Central Government or any State
Government Corporation or any Corporation owned or controlled by the
Central or State Government or any local authority or otherwise becomes
entitle to any remuneration from such Government Corporation or local
authority, shall not be entitled to any pension under sub-section (1) for the
period during which he continues to be employed and entitled to
remuneration. To put it in other words, if a Member of the Legislative
Assembly is not employed on a salary with or under the above mentioned
category of employers, he would be entitled to pension. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner being employed under the University as a Professor is covered by the term “local authority” disentitling him to the benefit of pension as claimed by him.

It is admitted by the counsel for the parties that the term “local authority” has not been defined under the 1975 Act or the Haryana Legislative Assembly Members (Pension) Rules, 1978 framed under the 1975 Act. The Court, thus, has to fall back upon the provisions of The General Clauses Act, 1897 which in Section 3 (31) defines local authority as follows:-

local authority” shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port Commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local
fund; A perusal of the above suggests that an Authority in order to be a local authority must imbibe in itself the characteristics and essentialities as are possessed by the Municipal Committee, District Board, upto the Court of Commissioners etc. It may not contain all the distinctive attributes of the above entities but some of these characteristics are required to be there so that it falls within the term “local authority”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court based on the principles of Ejusdem Generis has laid down the following essential components so that an institution or body can be
included within the ambit of the term “local authority” as defined by Section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act in the case of Union of India vs. R.C.Jain, 1981 (2) SCC 308 relevant of which reads as follows:-

2.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx?

First, the authorities must have separate legal existence as Corporate bodies. They must not be mere Governmental agencies but must be legally independent entities. Next, they must function in a defined area and must ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area. Next, they must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, with freedom to decide for themselves questions of policy affecting the area administered by them. The autonomy may not be
complete and the degree of the dependence may vary considerably but, an appreciable measure of autonomy there must be. Next, they must be entrusted by Statute with such Governmental functions and duties as are
usually entrusted to municipal bodies, such as those connected with providing amenities to the inhabitants of the locality, like health and education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation, social welfare services etc. etc.

Broadly we may say that they may be entrusted with the performance of civic duties and functions which would otherwise be Governmental duties and functions.

Finally, they must have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of their activities and the fulfilment of their projects by levying taxes, rates, charges, or fees. This may be in addition to moneys provided by Government or obtained by borrowing or otherwise. What is essential is that control or management of the fund must vest in the authority.

Kurukshetra University was incorporated under the Kurukshetra University Act, 1956. Thereafter, Kurukshetra University Act, 1986 was enacted and the Kurukshetra University Act, 1956 was repealed.

At the time when the petitioner could make a claim for grant of pension i.e. in the year 1986, the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 1986 Act) was in force. Applying the test as spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether University would fall within the definition of “local authority”, the 1986 Act will have to be gone into. The Haryana Act No.28 of 1986 was enacted by the Legislature of the State of Haryana which received the assent of the Government of Haryana on 18.12.1986 and was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 23.12.1986.

As per Section 3 of the Act, Kurukshetra University is to be a body corporate. It shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to contract, and may by the said name sue or to be sued. Powers and duties have been elaborated in Section 6 which primarily deals with education and advancement of the same and further, to hold examination and grant the degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions or titles to the persons, institute prizes, medals, research studentships, exhibitions and fellowships. It can receive gifts, donations and benefactions and transfers of moveable and immoveable property not only from the Government but from transferors, donors or testators, as the case may be. It can borrow money with the approval of the Government on the security of the property of the University for the purpose of the University. It has the authority to frame statutes, ordinances or regulations and alter, modify and rescind the same for all and any of the purposes mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. The Governor of Haryana by virtue of his office shall be the Chancellor of the University and as per Section 10 has a right to cause inspection of the University as also the enquiry to be made with the administration of finances of the Universities, olleges or institutions. As per Section 22 of the 1986 Act, University can charge fee for courses of study in the University and for admission to examinations, degrees and diplomas of the University. The annual accounts as per Section 26 and the balance sheet of the University is audited by the Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, Haryana or any other Auditor that may be appointed by the Government. The Court of the University apart from having ex-officio members, who, apart from the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor, are officials of the Government and the University consists of other members, two of whom are elected by the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from amongst its members and the Professors, teachers and various other different fields some of whom are elected.

A perusal of the above would show that the basic characteristics as spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court stand fulfilled by the Kurukshetra University to be included in the term “local authority” as defined under the General Clauses Act. Education being a concurrent list, the State Government shares the responsibility for development of education in the State. The State policy as well as the Central policy on education is to be implemented in letter and spirit since the State Government has primarily been given the responsibility for the development of the education in the State, the functions performed by the University being primarily education services which usually is entrusted to the municipal bodies, it fulfills the test thereof. It has the authority to impose fee for generation of its funds. It has the autonomy as far as its functions are concerned and it being an independent legal entity, it passes that test as well. It has the authority to raise funds for furtherance of its activities either by borrowing it or accepting it by donations or grants which may be received from the Government and other sources. The control and management of these funds is with the University; however, subject to audit by the State of Haryana. It also has the power to frame Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations for furtherance of the purposes as provided for in Section 6
of the Act, the Court being one of the primary authorities of the University
where elected members find representation. Thus, all the essential
components are found in the Kurukshetra University which would bring it
within the definition of “local authority” under the General Clauses Act. It
is not in dispute that the Kurukshetra University is a State for the purpose
of Article 12 of the Constitution, it being a public statutory body created
under the appropriate Act of the Legislature and empowered to make
Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations by the Legislature and would fall
within the term other authorities as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is held that Kurukshetra University is a local
authority.

If the Kurukshetra University is a local authority, the question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner in the light of Section 7-A (2),(iii) of the 1925 Act would be entitled to pension, which disentitles a person to any pension who is employed on a salary under the Central or any State Government or any Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority.

It is not in dispute that after the general elections were held on 17.6.1987
and the new Haryana Legislative Assembly was constituted, the petitioner
ceased to be a member of the Legislative Assembly and thereafter he
rejoined Kurukshetra University as a Professor and was paid salary by the
University. If that be so, the claim of the petitioner for pension from July
1987 till 30.4.1998 cannot be granted as he was not entitled to the same as per Section 7-A (2) (iii) of the 1925 Act.

In view of the above, we are left with no option but to reject the claim of the petitioner and dismiss the writ petition. Ordered accordingly.

( RANJAN GOGOI )
CHIEF JUSTICE

( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
JUDGE

SAMBHAV GARG Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS CWP 22772 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Decided on : 15-03-2011

Sambhav Garg ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University and others ...Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:-
Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. R.S.Rana, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3

MAHESH GROVER, J
The facts of the case are not disputed. The petitioner who took his M.Com examination in 2000 wanted to improve upon his performance for which he was granted a mercy chance by the respondents-University and permitted to appear for the examination in the year 2010 as per the existing norms and syllabus. The norms and syllabus which were prevalent at that point of time required the petitioner to pass examination in following subjects:-

1. Marketing Management
2. Personal Management
3. Industrial relations
4. International Business
5. Environment
6. Strategic Management
7. Computer Application to Business and E-commerce In one of the subject namely computer application to business and e-commerce had a requirement of 70 marks in theory and 30 marks in the practical examination. The petitioner was not permitted to take the practical examination and the reason given out by the respondents is that since the petitioner was given a mercy chance and he is not a student on the regular side undertaking the new curriculum, he cannot be permitted to take the practical examination. He was however assured that the marks for the
practical will be considered by calculating it proportionately on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the theory paper. To justify their decision reliance was placed on Rule 16.1 which is extracted herebelow:-

16.1 A person who has passed the Master Commerce (M.Com) Examination of this University and is desirous of improving his performance, will be allowed to appear as an ex-student in the M.Com Examination thrice in one or more theory paper(2) of Previous and/or Final Examination within a period of five years of his passing the
M.Com Examination. Such a candidate in the first instance shall be required to intimate all the paper(s) in which he would like to improve his Performance. He will then appear in the respective paper(s) at the previous and/or final simultaneously
in April/May and/or in Supplementary Examinations. If he does not improve his performance he shall be eligible to do so in the following year(s) which would be treated as second chance. In case he does not improve his performance even in
second chance, he shall be eligible to do in the third chance.

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the said rule does not enhance the case of the respondents at all.

According to Rule 16.1 after the petitioner had exhausted the chances for improving his performance which he was required to do within five years from the passing of his M.Com examination and upon his giving the intimation regarding the paper in which he wanted to improve his performance, opportunity was to be given to him and which was to be treated as a second chance but in the eventuality of an incumbent not improving his performance in the second chance, he was to be given a third chance. This rule could not be applied to the petitioner for the simple
reason that the respondents-University itself condoned the applicability of the rule in favour of the petitioner by giving him a mercy chance subject to the condition that he passes all the examinations in the subjects and the syllabus which was prevalent at that point of time. Having done so, they cannot be selective in their approach that the current syllabus and practice applied to all the students will not be applied to him. If one of the subjects entailed the holding of a practical examination and which was done qua all the other students, the same has to be done qua petitioner also and they cannot say that they will assess him in the practical examination on the basis of marks obtained in theory paper by calculating it in proportion to such marks obtained in theory paper. Accordingly, the action of the respondents is held to be arbitrary and unfair and accordingly set aside. The respondents shall hold the practical examination for the petitioner in the concerned
subject by intimating the petitioner regarding the same.

Hence allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(Mahesh Grover)
Judge

DR SUMAN DHANDA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS LPA 463 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Date of Decision 10.03.2011

Dr. Suman Dhanda ---Appellant
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ---Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present:
Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 04.01.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the remarks imputed to respondent No.7-Prof. V.K. Gupta, could not be regarded as loaded with sexual offence or sexual harassment at work place. The learned Single Judge has examined the remarks in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1997) 6 SCC 241. It would be appropriate to read the remarks quoted by the appellant:

On one hand your husband is claiming reimbursement for such a deadly disease and on the other hand you are having a baby. You should not have gone for it. If I would have been at his place, I would not have proceeded for it.

2. A perusal of the aforesaid remarks would not suggest that it is a lewd remark or desired to stimulant crude sexual desire or lust or it is obscene incident.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that no interference in the view taken by the leaned Single Judge would be called for. The allegation of sexual harassment levelled by the appellant are not substantiated nor made out from the aforesaid statement imputed to respondent No.7 by her.

4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE

(T.P.S. MANN)
JUDGE

RAJU Vs THE REGISTRAR KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA



DR JAI PARKASH GUPTA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA THROUGH ITS RE Civil Writ Petition 1228 of 1990

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

(O and M)

Date of Decision : 25.3.2011

Dr. Jai Parkash Gupta .......... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra, through its Registrar and others ...... Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

Present :
Ms. Jeushanjali Sharma, Advocate for
Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3.

K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time, I decline the prayer for adjournment and I proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of records.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Research Assistant in June, 1977 in the Department of Geography. Later on, it appears that he was appointed as a Lecturer in Geography on temporary basis vide orders dated 14.3.1988. The petitioner was aggrieved by the respondent's act of issuing an advertisement for two posts of Lecturer in Geography and apprehending that he would be vacated from his post without considering his claim for being regularized, the petitioner filed a civil writ petition restraining the department from termination of the petitioner from service. From the record, I find that the order of stay had been passed by this Court on 8.3.1990. I find that there was also a direction that the regular posts be not filled during the pendency of this writ petition, and the services of the petitioner be not terminated. The case was set down for final hearing on 9.4.1990, but the case stood adjourned on several hearing.

3. I am unable to secure the present status of the petitioner / employee. If he has been regularized in the process and he had been continued in service, no further direction would be required. If, on the other hand, the fresh recruitment had taken place the issue of
regularization does not arise. In either way there arises no case for consideration.

4. Writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.

(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE

SAVITA JAISWAL AND OTHERS Vs SHRI JOGINDER AND OTHERS

FAO NO. 123 OF 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: 02.08.2006

SAVITA JAISWAL AND OTHERS ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHRI JOGINDER AND OTHERS
....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

PRESENT:
MR. JAGDISH MANCHANDA, ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANT
MR. DEEPAK MISHRA, AAG, HARYANA
JUDGEMENT

This is an appeal filed by wife and two children of deceased Sanjai Jaiswal, who died in an accident with Haryana Roadway Bus bearing
No. HRL 9308 on 12.11.1987 at about 9.15 A.M. at Pipli Bus Stand.

The primary issues raised herein are with regard to the quantum of compensation and also the cut imposed by the Tribunal to the extent of 40 % by holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. It has come on record that the deceased was 31 years of age at the time of his death and was diploma holder in Civil Engineering and was employed as a Sectional Officer in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. It has been proved on record that he was drawing pay of Rs. 1718/- per month He left behind his old mother, wife and two children.

The Tribunal while assessing his dependency at Rs. 1200/-, applying a multiplier of 16, awarded a total of Rs. 2,30,400/-. Thereafter while imposing a cut of 40 % on account of contributory negligence, the amount payable to the claimants was fixed at Rs. 1,40,000/- (rounded off) which was ordered to be apportioned amongst the claimants.

Assailing, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence, the counsel for the appellant argued that the
deceased was an employee of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and as his family was residing at Ambala Cantt., he used to travel daily from his place of residence to his place of work. On the way, the bus was required to be changed at Pipli for going towards University.

Being a daily passenger, the deceased was quite aware of the situation and was always careful while boarding and leaving the bus and no untoward incident ever occurred ever since he joined service. On the unfortunate day also, as in routine the deceased was boarding the bus from Pipli Bus Stand for going towards
University the accident occurred, as a result of which the deceased was crushed under the rear wheel of the bus. There is an eye witness account on record in the form of statement of one Sh. Rakesh Kumar, who had lodged the FIR regarding the accident. In his statement, Rakesh Kumar stated that the bus in question stopped at a distance of 40-50 yards from the usual place of stoppage. The same was over crowded. Though he and one Chander Mohan managed to get in the bus but the deceased who was standing near the exit window was hit by the bus when it certainly started, as a result of which the deceased was crushed under the rear wheel of the bus. The bus was stopped after the passengers raised an alarm. Even in the statement of the driver the factum of the bus being over loaded is not denied rather he
admitted that a large number of passengers were standing near the bonnet and on the front window of the bus, meaning thereby that it was not possible for him to see what was happening at the exit door or outside the exit door.

Further his statement to the effect that it was an accident which occurred when the deceased tried to board the over crowded running bus is belied from his own statement when he stated that the bus being over crowded and the persons even standing near the bonnet and the front window, it was not
be possible for him to see as to whether any person was running to get into the bus or not.

In such a situation it was incumbent upon the driver and the conductor of the bus to be more careful and cautious while stopping and starting the bus so as to ensure that no untoward incident occur. Even the conductor of the bus, in his statement did not deny the fact that the bus was over crowded. He merely stated that the deceased was trying to board the bus while it was running. Resultantly the circumstances in which the accident occurred and from the evidence on record, in my opinion, the only conclusion would be that the accident occurred only because of rash and
negligent driving of the bus. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on this issue are reversed and accordingly, there would be no cut on this account.

Admittedly, deceased was 31 years of age, having Diploma in Civil Engineering and was employed with Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra as a Sectional Officer, drawing a salary of Rs. 1718/- per month at the relevant time. He had long way to go. He would have risen in the career and accordingly, the salary would have also increased. Under the
circumstances, in my opinion the dependency of the deceased should be assessed close to his income at the time of accident.

Accordingly, the same is determined at Rs. 1600/- per month and keeping in view his age as 31 years applying the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation assessed at Rs. 3,26,400/-. To this another a sum of Rs. 3600/- as transportation of the body from place of accident to the place of residence and funeral expenses etc. and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of consortium, accordingly, a total of Rs. 3,40,000/- is awarded as compensation.

The additional amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondents alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of application i.e. 10.12.1987 till the date of
payment.

The additional amount of compensation alongwith interest shall be apportioned amongst the claimants-appellants in the following manner:

i.e. 60 % of the amount shall be payable to the widow of the deceased, namely, Savita Jaiswal; 20 % each will be payable to two sons of the deceased.

The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE

RAJIV ALIAS ANIL YADAV Vs STATE OF HARYANA CRM No M 17109 of 2009


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 16.9.2009

Rajiv alias Anil Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent

Rama Shankar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:
Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for the complainant.

Rajan Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-17109 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-17284 of 2009, wherein prayer has been made for grant of bail to the petitioners in a case registered against them under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, vide FIR No.408 dated 1st september, 2008.

The allegations in the FIR is that the omplainant, who is working in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, wanted to get his son
Nishant admitted in a Medical College for MBBS course. He saw advertisement dated 18th July, 2008 in the news paper 'The Tribune'
about a person who claimed to help for the purpose of admission to MBBS course. The mobile numbers of the said person were also given in the advertisement. The complainant contacted the said person. He told him that an expenditure of Rs.20.00 lacs would be incurred in securing the admission. He gave his name as S. Kumar. On 20th July, 2008, said S. Kumar came to the house of the complainant and took Rs.2.00 lacs and instructed him to send DMC of 10+2 to him through fax. On 21st July, 2008, the complainant deposited Rs.32,300/- as registration charges in a bank account in Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

Thereafter, the complainant went to Bangalore, where an agent of S. Kumar, namely, Amit Aggarwal met him. The complainant demanded the receipt and paper of provisional admission, but the same were not delivered. He was told to go to a college at Lucknow. On 1st August, 2008, the complainant reached Lucknow and met S. Kumar. He demanded Rs.10.00 lacs in cash and Rs.4.00 lacs by way of cheque. He assured that provisional admission and receipt in that respect would be delivered soon. According to the complainant, the money, as demanded by S. Kumar, was given to him and S. Kumar delivered receipt and papers of provisional admission. Ultimately, the complainant reached KGMS College, Lucknow on 20th August, 2008 and presented the papers to the College. The College, however, informed that the papers were bogus. Thereafter, all efforts to contact S. Kumar failed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the entire FIR, the allegation of delivery of money is to S. Kumar. The only other person, whose reference is there in the FIR, is Amit Aggarwal. He has further argued that the petitioners have been in custody since 16th
January, 2009. According to him, the case is triable by the Magistrate and no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioners in custody during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that allegations in the FIR are serious in nature. He, however, does not dispute the fact that petitioners are not named in the FIR. He has also submitted that challan against the petitioners has already been presented.

Regarding rest of the accused, he submits that
efforts are afoot to arrest them, particularly S. Kumar and Amit Aggarwal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

Undoubtedly, the allegations in the FIR are serious in nature. The petitioners have, however, been in custody since January, 2009 and according to the stand of the investigating agency, investigation qua them has been completed and challan has been presented in the competent court. Admittedly, the petitioners are not named in the FIR though their role has figured in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency.

During the course of hearing, counsel for the complainant also put in appearance and stated that he had not named the petitioners Rama Shankar Shukla and Rajiv alias Anil Yadav in his complaint sent to the police. Keeping in view the fact that the case is triable by the
Magistrate and the petitioner has been in custody for almost nine months now, I do not feel that any useful purpose will be served by
detaining them in custody any further. The trial of the case may take time to conclude. The accused, who are named in the FIR i.e. S. Kumar and Amit Aggarwal are yet to be arrested by the Haryana Police.

I am, therefore, of the considered view that petitioners deserve the concession of bail. So, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE

KRITIKA KAMBOJ Vs VICE CHANCELLOR KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY LPA 13 of 2011

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: January 06, 2011.

Kritika Kamboj
Versus
Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice;
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih.

Present:
Shri Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ranjan Gogoi, ACJ (Oral)
The petitioner finally passed her Class 10+2 examination in the year 2010. Earlier, she was enrolled in the B.Com class (Part I) and sat in the Part I examination in the year 2009. According to the respondent- University, the said admission was provisional and was subsequently cancelled.

Dehors the stand taken by the respondent, if the petitioner has passed class 10+2 examination in the year 2010, we fail to see how the result of B.Com Part I examination which was held in the year 2009, can be directed to be published and notified. The LPA filed by the petitioner is thus without any merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Ranjan Gogoi)
(Acting Chief Justice)

(Augustine George Masih)
Judge

AMIT KUMAR Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and OTHERS Civil Writ Petition 22100 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Amit Kumar Vs Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others

Present:
Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
Let the petitioner first obtain appropriate information in case no criteria was adopted.

Counsel seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to file a fresh one after obtaining the necessary and relevant information to substantiate his claim in the writ petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

( RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE


DR SUMAN DHANDA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and OTHERS Civil Writ Petition 22260 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: January 04, 2011

Dr.Suman Dhanda ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ...Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:
Mr.V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry at Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

The petitioner complains that she was harassed at work place by the Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry. As per the petitioner, this has continued ever since she had started her career.

When asked to elaborate the remarks, which, according to the petitioner would lead to her sexual harassment, the counsel would point out to that part of complaint filed by her where she has averred:-

On one hand your husband is claiming reimbursement for such a deadly disease and on the other hand you are having a baby. You should not have gone for it. If I would have been at his place, I would not have proceeded for it.

This, according to the counsel, were sex loaded remarks and, thus, amounted to her sexual harassment at work place.

The grievance of the petitioner further is that the complaint of the petitioner has not been attended to properly. As per the petitioner, the committee which was constituted to investigate this complaint was also not properly constituted as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011.

The prayer accordingly is made for directing the respondent-University to re-constitute the committee as the earlier committee had not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to present her case.

The petitioner has also prayed sought quashing of Annexures P-5, P-8 and P-9, vide which she alongwith other Professor including the Chairman of the Department were asked to function in a cordial and harmonious relationship to build up the Department and to maintain good quality of teaching and research work in the University.

I have examined the remarks minutely, which are alleged to be loaded with sex and as per the petitioner would lead to her sexual harassment at work place. I have not been able to persuade myself to accept the submissions made that the remarks were such which could be termed as loaded with sex tenor to fall within the mischief of sexual harassment at work place as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka's case (supra). Even if it be accepted that the remarks indeed were made by the respondent, these could, at the most, be termed as inappropriate that too if the petitioner and the respondent were not having normal healthy working relationship. It may be difficult to term such remarks as sexual. I have also not been able to appreciate as to how an advisory issued by the Vice-Chancellor to the Professor working in a Department to behave and work in a cordial atmosphere would be amenable to correction or interference by way of writ of certiorari.

The advisory issued by the Vice Chancellor would not give an actionable cause to the petitioner. The petitioner, if still feels that any offence or misconduct is committed, then she would have rather better alternative remedy. I am, thus, not inclined to invoke
extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere in this matter.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

( RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE

VARUN KAUSHAL Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER Civil Writ Petition 22248 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: December 21, 2010

Varun Kaushal .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University and another ....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

Present:
Mr. S.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the respondents.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner who is a student of LL.B. (Professional) three Year Degree Course (Evening), has prayed for direction to the respondents to permit him to appear in 1st Semester LL.B. examination, which is to commence w.e.f. 22.12.2010. The facts in
this case are bit different and would need a reference in detail to get the hang of the issues agitated in the petition.

The petitioner was granted admission to the LL.B. Course as per the direction issued by this Court in No.13799 of 2009. Copy of the said order has been placed on record as Annexure P-1 and would show that this Court had followed the ratio of law laid down in the case of Deepak Sibal Versus Panjab University and another, AIR 1989 and had directed the admission of the petitioner for which the seat was to be allocated by creating additional seat to the normal intake capacity.

The petitioner was directed to be admitted in the then current academic session. The University was to make an appropriate
recommendation to the Bar Council and this seat was too to be for
one academic session only.

The petitioner claims to have reported to the University with the certified copy of the order, but still was not granted admission. As per the petitioner when he deposited the copy of the order passed by the Court with the Bar Council, the University had then granted admission to him on 10.12.2009. The petitioner was directed to deposit examination fee for 1st Semester on 18.12.2009.

The examination was to commence w.e.f. 30.12.2009. The petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination.

The petitioner would make reference to the fact that he was directed to deposit casual student fee on 26.7.2010, which he did on 28.8.2010. As per the petitioner, a Clerk in the Law Department then made an endorsement on the back of the deposit receipt directing him approach and inform all the teachers about his admission to permit him to attend classes. The petitioner was issued Roll No.156 for evening classes. Later, the said Clerk informed the petitioner that this roll number was for morning session. Later the same roll number was superimposed with No.280. The petitioner claims to have attended the evening classes thereafter and had approached the Vice-Chancellor for
appearing in the 1st Semester Examination. No reply was received .

The examinations are fixed on 22.12.2010 and so the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Reply is filed by the University. Apart from contesting the claim of the petitioner on merit, some preliminary objections have been raised. It is pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had concealed true and material facts.

It is then disclosed that the petitioner was allowed admission in LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) as his
writ petition was allowed on 22.11.2009. The petitioner was admitted during the 1st Semester on 10.12.2009. Despite that, the
petitioner did not attend even a single lecture in LL.B. 1st Semester.

The petitioner was not held eligible to take examination of LL.B. 1st
Semester, which was held in December, 2009. Since, the petitioner was still eligible for being promoted to LL.B. 2nd Semester, he was, accordingly, so promoted.

Reply would disclose that the petitioner did not even attend a single lecture of LL.B. 2nd Semester, for which the examinations were held in May, 2010 and this fact is admitted by the petitioner in his representation, copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-1/3.

Perusal of Annexure P-1/3 would show that the petitioner is stated to have suffered from flue during the months of January and February, 2010. He had, accordingly, pleaded in the representation that he was advised not to move in public to avoid
spreading the infection. As per the petitioner, he could not so commence attending classes of 2nd Semester. The petitioner has
made a reference to old age of his parents and the ailments that
they were suffering to claim that he had remained busy in attending to his parents and thus, could not attend lectures during the 2nd Semester. By pleading that the absence to attend the lectures in 1st and 2nd Semester, was beyond his control, the petitioner had prayed for grant of permission to join 3rd Semester and thus, to continue his study of the LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course. The petitioner had even undertaken to take first and the second semester examination by completing the requisite number of lectures as per the University/Bar Council Rules, in due course prior to his completing LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course.

The counsel has made grievance about the fact that the petitioner had been taken as a casual student and that no such category of student was defined in the Ordinance. Grievance is further made in regard to the issuance of roll number and various other such issues, which have got no relevance with the prayer made in the petition. The counsel was told to confine his submission to the relevant facts necessary to decide the case, but he continues to plead the case in his own manner. The difficulty with the counsel can be appreciated as he is pleading the cases of his own son.

That is why it is always considered admissible not to appear as a counsel in those cases where personal interest is at stake. The counsel was even given suggestion to take assistance of his colleagues or a counsel detailed by the Court, but he declined the same. The University otherwise has explained the reasons for which the petitioner was permitted to take casual admission as an ex student. Reference in this regard is made to Annexure-R/1.

Concededly, the petitioner after grant of admission had never come to attend any class and attempt on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to dispute this factual position would rebounce on him in the form of Annexure-P-3/1, where the petitioner himself has conceded the entire factual position. The petitioner has not made any grievance about he having not been permitted to appear in the 1st Semester examination, which was held in December, 2009. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to 2nd Semester. Despite that the petitioner has not attended even a single a lecture of 2nd Semester. The representation to the Vice-Chancellor would reveal so. If the petitioner had been attending the classes, as was the case made during the course of arguments, there was no reason for him to file representation Annexure P-3/1.

The problem of the petitioner is further compounded from the fact disclosed in the reply that he has even not filled up the examination form for appearing in the examination, which is going to take place on 22.12.2010. Last date for depositing the examination form was 15.9.2010. The form could be deposited with late fee by 15.11.2010. The petitioner concededly has not
filled up the examination form. The petitioner in this regard also
made representation on 25.11.2010 to allow him to submit examination form, copy of which he has himself annexed with the
petition as Annexure-P/5. His request was declined keeping in view that he had not attended requisite number of classes and thus, there was shortage of lectures. As per the reply, the petitioner had attended only 70 lecturers out of 384 upto 29.11.2010. In this background, his request for late submission of the examination form was not accepted.

Counsel for the petitioner, however, pleads that being a casual student, he was not required to deposit any form. In this regard, counsel for the respondents refers to the representation Annexure P-5 filed by the petitioner. The heading of this reads ‘Grant of permission to deposit examination form/fee for the 1st semester examination 2010-11-casual student, Roll No.281’. The submission that the petitioner was not required to submit examination form, is contrary to the stand of the petitioner as
projected in Annexure P-5. The net result is that the petitioner has
neither fulfilled the requirement of attending lectures nor has
submitted his examination form and it would be highly unjust in the
facts and background of this case to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in examination.

Counsel for the petitioner lastly made prayer on human ground for sympathetic consideration of his case. The cause as would emerge from the pleadings in this case would be such that the grant of any sympathetic consideration would certainly be misplaced. The equity and compassion would come into play only
in case there is requirement of imparting justice with some mercy
due to reason that person is in difficulty because of reasons beyond his control. Counsel for the petitioner has not disclosed
anything which shows that there was something beyond his control
for which he could not attend the classes or otherwise could not
submit the form, which appears to be a totally due to casual approach and attitude. The petitioner himself is responsible for his
own fate for which no Court can help him in law or equity.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

( RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE

PROFESSOR BHIM S DAHIYA Vs KURUKSHERA UNIVERSITY and OTHERS Letters Patent Appeal 398 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB and
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

(O and M)

Date of decision : December 17, 2010

Professor Bhim S. Dahiya ...Appellant
Versus
Kurukshetra University and others ...Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:
Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate with
Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shivpriya Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to count following period as qualifying service for purpose of computing
pensionary benefits:

a) From 2.11.1965 to 30.11.1965
b) From September 1972 to October, 1974
c) From 8.8.1996 to 31.3.1998

Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner joined as Lecturer in the Department of English in Kurukshetra University on 2nd November, 1965 and was later confirmed from the same date.

The petitioner was selected as Reader thereafter and became a professor in the year 1985. He went on to become Pro-Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of the University later. From 30.6.1993 to 30.6.1996 he remained Vice Chancellor of the University and worked on a monthly salary of Rs.7600/- besides allowances. On 1st July, 1997 he joined back as Professor in the Department of English and on 6th August, 1996 he was awarded a fellowship in the Indian Institute of Advance Studies at Shimla to work on a research project on the University Autonomy in India. In order to pursue the fellowship he applied for leave without pay on 7th August, 1996. The petitioner also requested that said period be treated as period spent on deputation.

According to petitioner, the university agreed to this request provided the borrowing institute would pay his provident fund and other contribution due from the employer. The petitioner has averred that the Institute sent a draft of Rs.8068/- as matching contribution to the university. However, university returned the same saying that same was not acceptable. On 26th November, 1997 the petitioner again requested the university to treat the period of service with the Institute as deputation period but same was not accepted. The petitioner's main grievance is that the period spent by him in pursuing the fellowship from 8.8.1996 to 31.3.1998 should be considered as qualifying service and his pension be calculated accordingly.

The claim set up by the petitioner was, however, refuted by the university stating that petitioner proceeded to pursue the fellowship
at the Institute at Shimla of his own and thus, the said period was treated as extra-ordinary leave without pay and same could not be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of computing pension. Learned Single Judge also declined relief in this respect while partly allowing the petition directing the respondents to count the period from 2.11.1965 to 30.11.1965 and September, 1972 to October, 1974 as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Rules 1 and 2 contained in Kurukshetra University Calendar Vol. III, 1993 Edition, to contend that if application of confirmed employee is
forwarded by the university for outside job, he would be granted such leave as may admissible to him under the rules and he would be permitted to retain his lien for the period of such leave.

According to him, the Rules demand that the said period be treated as “Foreign Service”. He has also referred to Rule 4 of Kurukshetra University Employees Pension Rules where qualifying service is defined.

According to him, the period spent on deputation under the said Rules is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, if pension contribution period for the said period is deposited in the corpus fund at the rate prescribed. Attention of the court has also been drawn to Rules 16-A, 3 (a) and 18-B of the Kurukshetra University Employees Foreign Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred as “Foreign Service Rules”). While Rule 16 (a) has been referred because it contains provision for payment of contributions towards Contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave salary of an employee by the foreign employer, Rule 3 (a) has been referred to because it contains definition of 'foreign service'. Rule 18-B has been relied upon to submit that where the university employee is allowed by the Executive Council to serve under any other university, educational institution, department etc., such period would be treated as period spent on deputation.

Learned counsel has also referred to Rule 12 of the Rules to refer to the competent authority to grant extra ordinary leave and total period, for which same may be granted. According to counsel, Rule 12-B envisages that leave granted to enable a teacher to accept a foreign assignment of visiting professor would count for increments in view of proviso of Rule 12.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was never sent on deputation to Indian Institute of Advance Studies at Shimla. He proceeded to join the said Institute on his own request and the said period was treated as leave without pay.

He has also drawn attention of the court to the communication received from the Institute at Shimla, Annexure R1/2 to contend that fellowship was not awarded to the petitioner on terms and conditions of deputation and thus, no leave salary/gratuity contribution could be paid by the Institute. The Institute could only pay pension/provident fund contribution as per instructions of Government of India dated February 28, 1991. It was decided by the university that the petitioner would not be entitled to any retirement benefits for the period he remained on extra ordinary leave. According to him, the petitioner had availed of 09 years and 90 days of extra ordinary leave upto 18th June, 1987. He has relied
upon Rule 2 (a) to contend that service as defined in the Leave
Regulations, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as “Leave Regulations”), means whole period of continuous service spent on leave other than extra ordinary leave.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rules 1 and 2 of the Kurukshetra University Calendar Volume-III are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

1. (i) confirmed employee will be permitted to apply for an outside job or for a scholarship, fellowship, etc., but not more than three applications for outside jobs and three applications for scholarship, fellowships, etc., will be forwarded during a Calendar year. However, with the permission of the Vice Chancellor any number of application for an outside job can be forwarded.

(ii) There will be no restriction on persons who are working only on Ad hoc/Leave arrangements, provided they are not holding any permanent lower post in the University.

All applications to be forwarded by the University must reach the establishment Branch, complete in all respects including copies of certificate, testimonials, at least ten days before the closing date. There will be no objection to an application being sent as an Advance Copy, provided this fact is mentioned in the application through proper channel, which must be submitted to the University simultaneously with the submission of the Advance Copy.

2. If a confirmed employee whose application for an outside job has been forwarded by the University is selected for it, he will be granted such leave as may be admissible to him under the rules and also permitted to retain his lien for the period of such leave or he will be asked to resign as per rules. The Vice-Chancellor will decide each case on its merit.

Rule 16-A which defines foreign service reads thus:

While an employee is in foreign service, contributions towards his Contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave salary, shall be paid to the University by the Foreign employer failing which the same shall be paid by the employee himself.

Another Rule which is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case is Rule 12 of the Leave Regulations which reads as follows:-

12. The competent authority, for any special reason, may grant an employee extra-ordinary leave of absence but such leave shall be without pay and shall not ordinarilyexceed one year at a time.

Provided that the maximum total period for which such leave is granted, shall not, ordinarily, exceed three years and in exceptional cases such leave may be extended so that the total period of leave, during the whole tenure of service of an employee, does not exceed five years. This period may be extended by the Executive Council beyond 5 years on production of Medical Certificate from the competent Medical Authority.

Provided further that in the case of a teacher who has accepted a job elsewhere the extra-ordinary leave (without pay) shall not be extended beyond two years, except when the Executive Council decides otherwise.

Provided further that the period spent on extra-ordinary leave (without pay) shall not count for increments, except when-

(a) the sanctioning authority is satisfied that such leave was taken by a University teacher on account of illness or for any other cause beyond the control of the teacher.

(b) the leave is granted to enable a teacher to accept a foreign assignment of Visiting Professorship and the like.

The grant of increment to non-teaching employees will be governed by the rules governing their conditions of service, etc.

It is evident that Rule 1 as contained in Kurukshetra University Calendar Vol. III, enables a confirmed employee to apply for outside job, fellowship etc., Rule 2 thereof envisages that such
confirmed employees whose application has been forwarded by the university, would be granted such leave as may be admissible to him under the Rules and he would also be permitted to retain his lien for such period. Rule 3 (a) of the Foreign Service Rules defines foreign service which means service on deputation with Central or State Government Department other university and autonomous organization within India and abroad. Rule 16-A of the said Rules provides that when an employee is in foreign service, contributory provident fund, gratuity and leave salary would be paid to the university by the foreign employer failing which same would be paid by the employee himself.

Rule 2 (a) of Leave Regulations defines a service to mean whole period of continuous service including the period spent on leave other than extra-ordinary leave.

From the facts of the case it is evident that after the petitioner was awarded a fellowship by the Indian Institute of Advance Studies at Shimla, he proceeded to join the same on his own request.

On 7th August, 1996 he had applied to the university for leave without pay but without any loss of service benefits. The university, however, treated the said period as leave without pay but without super-annuatory benefits. There can be no manner of doubt that the service as defined in the leave regulations (Rule 2 (a)) does not envisage extra-ordinary leave without pay to be counted for the purpose of continuous service. The reference by learned counsel to Rule 3 (a) of the Foreign Service Rules is misplaced. Since the petitioner was not on deputation for the period 8th August, 1998 to 31st March, 1998, it cannot be said that petitioner was deputed on foreign service and thus entitled to benefit of Rule 16 (a). This apart, a perusal of Rule 12-A of the Leave Regulations shows that maximum period of extra-ordinary leave envisaged by the said Rule during whole tenure of service ought not to exceed five years unless same is extended by the Executive Council for medical illness.

However, in case of the petitioner he had been granted extra-ordinary leave (without pay) for 09 years and 22 days, out of which for certain period (1982 to 1987), he remained member of State Legislative Assembly (MLA).

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly denied the petitioner the claim for counting period from 8th August, 1996 to 31st March, 1998 as qualifying service for the purpose of computing
pension. A combined reading of the rules, reproduced above, makes it clear that the petitioner is not entitled to this benefit. The other rules referred to by counsel for the petitioner are not relevant and thus have not been reproduced herein above. This court having come to a conclusion that the petitioner could not be said to be on deputation for the period 8th August, 1996 to 31.3.1998 when he joined fellowship at the institute at Shimla, the prayer is for counting the same as qualifying service for the purpose of pension is without any merit and is rejected.

The appeal is, thus, dismissed.

(RANJAN GOGOI)
JUDGE

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE

SANDEEP Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Miscellaneous Application No.8563 of 2009 In Civil Writ Petition No.6914 of 2009 (O and M)

Date of Decision: May 14, 2009

Sandeep .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Others .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
The application has been filed for preponing the case as the main petition is fixed for 9.7.2009.

On going through the contents of the petition, I find that claim of the petitioner is that admission has been cancelled on the premise that he was not eligible to take admission in B.A., LLB 3 years course.

Learned counsel, however, contends that on reference to the relevant rules and regulations, it transpires that indeed the petitioner was not eligible and therefore, he would like to withdraw the main petition.

The main petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

In view of the fact that the main petition has been withdrawn, this application has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

DILJOT SINGH Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and OTHERS Civil Writ Petition 7232 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: May 14, 2009

Diljot Singh .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Others .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE


MADHUSMITA MISHRA PANT AND OTHERS Vs HUKAM CHAND and OTHERS



DEEPTI MALHOTRA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.6091 of 2009

Date of Decision: April 23, 2009

Deepti Malhotra .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Another .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
The petitioner took admission in B.Ed Course, well knowing that a person with compartment in a subject was not eligible to take admission. The factum having come to fore, the admission has been cancelled under orders of the University, conveyed to the petitioner through the College where she took admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks refuge under judgment of Division Bench of
this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008, dated 21.11.2008.

Learned counsel contends that the judgment of the Division Bench has subsequently been followed and a person on similar footing as the petitioner, has been allowed the
benefit. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the petition.

The petitioner cannot take any advantage of the judgment rendered by Division Bench
of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008 in so much as it was a condition precedent for allowing admission to the students that the student should have been eligible for such admission to B.Ed Course. Admittedly, the petitioner was not eligible,
even on 5.12.2008, i.e. the last date by which admissions were to be allowed under the cited judgment.

Reliance has been placed on another decision viz. judgment dated 16.2.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.1060 of 2009 (Ms. Pooja vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra).

The case of Ms. Pooja (supra) also does not give any benefit to the petitioner in so
much as Ms. Pooja became eligible before the cut off date given under the Division Bench judgment of this Court viz. 5.12.2008. It is not in dispute that result of compartment examination of the petitioner was declared much after December 2008.

No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.

The petition is dismissed.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

SHIVA CONSTR and ANR Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P NO. 17322 OF 2008

DECIDED ON : 30.03.2009

M/S Shiva Constr. and Anr. ...Petitioners
versus
Kurukshetra University and Anr. ...Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

Present :
Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. S. C. Sibbal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. V. S. Rana, Advocate, for the respondents.

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-39), whereby the arbitration proceedings between them and respondent No.1, pending before respondent No.2-the Arbitrator, are stated to have been abruptly closed.

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The impugned order, a copy of which has been received by petitioner No.2 under the Right to Information Act, has also been perused.

It appears that while the matter was pending before respondent No.2-the Arbitrator, certain directions to be complied with by the petitioner were issued. As the petitioners failed to honour those directions and no-one appeared on their behalf, the learned Arbitrator drop the arbitration proceedings.

Meanwhile, respondent No.2, who was serving as Superintending Engineer, PWD (B and R) Department, Government of Haryana, has retired from service.

The Arbitration Agreement between the parties reads as follows :

(2) All disputes or differences in respect of which the decision is not final and conclusive shall at the request in writing of either party, made in a communication sent through Registered A.D Post, be referred to the sole arbitration of any serving Superintending Engineer or Chief Engineer of Haryana, PWD (BandR) Branch, to be nominated by designation by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, PWD (BandR) Branch, at the relevant time. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a government servant or that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that in course of his duties as a Government servant, he had expressed his views on all or any of the matters in dispute. The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office, his successor in office, as such shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the state at which it was left by the predecessor.

Since no award was passed by respondent No.2 till his retirement, the impugned order to the extent of closing the arbitration proceedings cannot sustain and the same is hereby set aside. Respondent No.1-University is directed to nominate a new Arbitrator, as per the agreement, who shall proceed further with the arbitration proceedings from the stage from where respondent No.2 left, with an advance notice to the petitioners and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, as early as possible.

Disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE

SHIVAL KUMAR Vs THE X E N (POST GRADUATE REGIONAL CENTRA SIRSA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 21861 of 2008.

Date of Decision : March 23, 2009.

Shival Kumar. .... Petitioner.
Versus.
The X.E.N. (Post Graduate Regional Centre Sirsa) Kurukshetra University, Haryana and another. ...Respondents.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:
Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record.

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, wherein the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act and further
on the ground that the reference is barred by limitation as claim petition was filed on 28.04.2003 whereas his services were terminated in the year, 2000.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the delay in submitting his claim statement, is totally against the records. The Labour Court has only seen C.W.P. No. 21861 of 2008.

claim statement made before the Labour Court and has failed to take into
consideration the demand notice which was made on 29.11.2000. The
workman having made demand notice in the same year in which termination of service is alleged by the workman, the time taken by the Government for making the reference cannot be treated as a ground of holding the workman responsible for the delay in putting forth his claim statement. Further the reference also is of the year, 2002, the finding therefore cannot be sustained.

He further contends that no finding has been recorded with regard to the
period of work for which the workman had worked nor has 12 preceding
months been taken into consideration which would entitle the workman for
the protection of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and in case the
workman completes 240 days he would be entitled to Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. In any case violation of Section 25-H has been
alleged in the demand notice and therefore, completion or non completion
of 240 days also would not have any effect as far as his claim before the
Labour Court is concerned.

Counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that since the appointment of the workman would come within the definition of Section 2 (oo) clause (bb), therefore, this would not be retrenchment and therefore, the requirement of giving a finding with regard to period of work the workman has put in 12 months preceding the date of termination would not have any effect on the ultimate decision of the Labour Court.

I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court and am in full agreement with the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. The facts are apparent which have been stated above, the finding with regard to the delay, the reference being barred by limitation is totally devoid of any merits and deserves to be set aside and therefore, is accordingly set aside.

Perusal of the award would further show that no finding with regard to the issues which can be said to be based on the evidence led by the respective parties given by the Labour Court is non existent. The law cannot be put to effect without relying upon the facts and giving a finding to that effect. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, wherein the workman has been held entitled to compensation in case he is not entitled to reinstatement if the provisions as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with.

Therefore, it would not only be necessary but essential that the finding on
facts on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the respective parties be given by the Labour Court to settle the rights of the parties in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the award dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 20.04.2009 which shall proceed and decide the case as per the above observations afresh.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE

BIRBAL Vs THE X E N (POST GRADUATE REGIONAL CENTRE SIRSA) K

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 21864 of 2008.

Date of Decision : March 23, 2009.

Birbal. .... Petitioner.
Versus.
The X.E.N. (Post Graduate Regional Centre Sirsa) Kurukshetra University, Haryana and another. ...Respondents.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:
Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record.

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, wherein the reference has been answered against the workman
holding him not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act and further
on the ground that the reference is barred by limitation as claim petition was filed on 28.04.2003 whereas his services were terminated in the year, 2000.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the delay in submitting his claim statement, is totally against the records. The Labour Court has only seen C.W.P. No. 21864 of 2008.

claim statement made before the Labour Court and has failed to take into
consideration the demand notice which was made on 29.11.2000. The
workman having made demand notice in the same year in which termination of service is alleged by the workman, the time taken by the Government for making the reference cannot be treated as a ground of holding the workman responsible for the delay in putting forth his claim statement. Further the reference also is of the year, 2002, the finding therefore cannot be sustained.

He further contends that no finding has been recorded with regard to the
period of work for which the workman had worked nor has 12 preceding
months been taken into consideration which would entitle the workman for
the protection of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and in case the workman completes 240 days he would be entitled to Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. In any case violation of Section 25-H has been
alleged in the demand notice and therefore, completion or non completion
of 240 days also would not have any effect as far as his claim before the
Labour Court is concerned.

Counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that since the appointment of the workman would come within the definition of Section 2 (oo) clause (bb), therefore, this would not be retrenchment and therefore, the requirement of giving a finding with regard to period of work the workman has put in 12 months preceding the date of termination would not have any effect on the ultimate decision of the Labour Court.

I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court and am in full agreement with the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. The facts are apparent which have been stated above, the finding with regard to the delay, the reference being barred by limitation is totally devoid of any merits and deserves to be set aside and therefore, is accordingly set aside.

Perusal of the award would further show that no finding with regard to the issues which can be said to be based on the evidence led by the respective parties given by the Labour Court is non existent. The law cannot be put to effect without relying upon the facts and giving a finding to that effect. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, wherein the workman has been held entitled to compensation in case he is not entitled to reinstatement if the provisions as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with.

Therefore, it would not only be necessary but essential that the finding on
facts on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the respective parties be given by the Labour Court to settle the rights of the parties in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the award dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 20.04.2009.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE

NEERAJ JINDAL Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.21879 of 2008

Date of Decision: March 21, 2009

Neeraj Jindal .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University and others .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Shri Krishan Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kurukshetra and Managing committee, Shri Krishan Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kurukshetra, to issue Roll Number issued by Kurukshetra University, to the petitioner for the examinations to be held from 30.12.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the petitioner, on the indulgence having been shown by this Court, has been able to take the examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further informed the Court that the petitioner does not have any grievance, as the needful prayed for in the petition, has been satisfied. During the course of hearing, however, it has been pointed out that the respondent-Institute is not issuing receipts for the fees received from the students. It has further been pointed out that whereas higher fees is taken, less fees is reflected in the records of the College. Learned counsel has further contended that the respondent-Institute insists on payment by cash. In the context of the case of the petitioner, learned counsel contends that the petitioner applied for admission in open category and was given admission. It has now become evident that the admission of the petitioner has been shown against a seat from weaker section and therefore, while higher fees has been charged, less amount is shown in the records of the College. Sh. C.B. Goel, Advocate, appearing for the University has informed the Court that for a person coming from weaker section lower fees is to be charged.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of respondent Nos.2 and 3, in the context of the petitioner, whose roll number was issued by the University, however, not released to the petitioner by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the contention made in the petition, it would be just and proper to direct the Kurukshetra University through its Registrar to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in the context reflected in the order hereinabove and other averments made in the petition. An Officer from the Department of Technical Education would also be involved in the enquiry.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to cooperate with the Enquiry Committee by supplying the entire record. In case, the Enquiry Committee finds that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been misconducting and violating Rules and Regulations or defrauding students, proper action as required by law would be initiated within 90 days of receipt of copy of this order.

It is made clear that if any action is proposed to be taken against respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the instance of the University or the State Government, the same would be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos.2
and 3. Disposed of in the above terms.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

SUNIL KAMBOJ Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY



DR VED VRAT SHARMA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 11178 of 2009

DATE OF DECISION : 28.07.2009

Dr. Ved Vrat Sharma .... PETITIONER
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

RAJ RAJESHWARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION THROUGH ITS PR Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 9649 of 2009

Date of decision: July 17, 2009

Raj Rajeshwari College of Education through its President....... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others.......Respondents

Coram:
Honble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

Present:
Mr. K L Dhingra, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, have been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition in order to avail of the alternative remedy.

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the instant writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge

BRIJ MOHAN BEHAL Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.14300 of 2007

DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 12, 2009

Brij Mohan Behal.....PETITIONER
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:
HON BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Ms. Kirti Singh, A.A.G.,Haryana, for respondent No.2.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of the State Government where the Government has declined to accept the recommendations made by the respondent-University with regard to
relaxation as per Clause 20 of the ACP Rules.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE

R C MAURYA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 12128 of 2009

DATE OF DECISION : 12.08.2009

R.C. Maurya .... PETITIONER
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :-
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
After arguing for some time, when the Court is not inclined to entertain this petition in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Technician `D on the very same day, when respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Junior Technical Assistant, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition without prejudice to his right to avail other remedy under the law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA Vs INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

FAO No. 4199 of 2007 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: August 05, 2009

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra ........ Appellant
Versus
Institute of Management and Information Technology and others ...Respondent(s)

Coram:
Hon ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

Present:
Mr. S C Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. V S Rana, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. S K Pipat, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
This is an appeal against the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act ) have been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that it was specifically mentioned under Clause 4 of the Collaboration agreement that respondent No. 1 will not authorise any other
agency or center other than the center run by it, to enroll students to any course of the University and any violation thereof will lead to cancellation of the collaboration without any notice and no refund of any fee will be allowed. In terms of the agreement, respondent No. 2 deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the appellant. However, it was alleged that respondent No. 2 had appointed M/s Alfa Institute of Computer and Management, Jaipur as its franchise.

Accordingly, the appellant forfeited the deposited sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the respondents. A dispute having arisen, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who ordered the refund of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of termination of the agreement till the date of the award.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Arbitrator has, therefore, failed to consider Clause 4 of the Agreement and award has been passed in violation of terms of the collaboration agreement and has further not appreciated the objections raised by the appellant.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

Court s attention was invited by the learned counsel for the respondents to para 24 of the Award. The same is reproduced below:-

24. The point that the U.G.C. has closed the Distance Courses of K U K and the said unive4rsity was black listed, it draw my attention to the EX.CW 9 i.e. the News Item dated 06.08.01 published in Times of India and further News Item dated 06.01 published in Hindustan Times in Hindi Edition on dated 06.08.2001, thereby clarifying the position by the Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and the document EX.CW
14 with the heading U G C bans Distance Education deals with Letter EX CW 15 of IMIT to the Chairman UGC and further Letter dated 22.08.01 EX CW 16 of Chairman, UGC to IMIT with a copy to Vice Chancellor, KUK thereby explaining the complete position and informing that the U G C had decided that any University which proposes to enter into collaboration with any Private Institute would be required to
take prior approval of U G C and further Commission deciding thereon that no University should be permitted to go for off campus private education franchise leading to the award of its degrees. Further informing that all the Universities are hereby directed to stop franchising their degrees, education through private Agencies/Establishments with immediate effect.

From the perusal of the same, it is evident that there was no breach of the terms and conditions and Clause 4 of the agreement is not attracted in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the respondents had no concern or connection with M/s Alfa Institute of Computer and Management, Jaipur and they never authorised or appointed any institute as their sub center except the referred five centers. In fact, the University did not respond to its request to enable them to admit the students. However, a show cause notice dated 08.08.2001, EX RW13 was issued by the University for forfeiture of the amount prior to the execution of the agreement.

The aforesaid show cause notice deals with the documents prior to the execution of the agreement. Thus, the termination of the agreement by invoking Clause 4 was done on the basis of documents prior to the execution of the agreement, which stood already confirmed and approved by the Kurukshetra University. The letter dated 14.07.2001, EX RW4, on the basis of which, termination of the agreement was issued, was not even mentioned in the cancellation letter, EX CW12. The remaining documents pertained to the period after the termination of the agreement. Thus, it was evident that the respondents had not given to franchise in favour of M/s Alfa Institute of Computer and Management, Jaipur and, as such, no fault can be found with the award granting the relief.

In view of the above, the grounds so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be made the basis for cancellation of the award as also for setting aside of the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

There is no justification to interfere with the award dated 25.06.2005 as well as the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra.

However, learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, submitted that interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which was ordered to be paid from the date of award till the realisation of the amount is on the higher
side.

I do not find any justification to interfere with the direction to pay interest @ 18% on the awarded amount from the date of award till its realisation, inasmuch as, interest @ 12% per annum has been ordered to be paid from the date of termination of the agreement i.e. 28.08.2001 till the date of award and @ 18% per annum from the date of award till its realisation. The appellant can always avoid the payment of 18% interest by making the payment in time. Therefore, the rate of interest from the date of award till its realisation shall be the same as awarded by the Arbitrator, i.e. 18% per annum, except for the period from the date of interim order staying the execution of the award i.e. 15.10.2007 till the passing of the present order, the interest shall be at the rate of 8% per annum.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge

RAJINDER KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 19224 of 2008

Date of Decision: March 16, 2009

Rajinder Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

Present:
Mr.Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J.
Replies filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and 4 separately are taken on record.

The only dispute which was raised in this case is that the petitioner's candidature was not being considered on the ground that he had not got the requisite marks. The case of the petitioner was that he had applied for reevaluation. Under the interim orders of this Court petitioner was interviewed. In the written statement the plea taken was that in case the
petitioner succeeds in reevaluation that result would have to relate back to
the date of original result and, therefore, in that eventuality the petitioner would have to be considered as eligible. The Kurukshetra University was
impleaded as respondent No.4 to ascertain this factual aspect. In the short
reply filed by the said University it has been clarified that as a consequence
of the reevaluation the petitioner has been declared pass. Thus, as per the
legal consequence of the averment of respondent No.3 now the petitioner
would have to be considered eligible.

Consequently this writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner as eligible for the post and to declare his result if not declared till date.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

GURKIRAN KAUR ABDAL Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.2697 of 2009

Date of Decision: March 05, 2009

Gurkiran Kaur Abdal .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Another .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: -
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent No.1.

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Letter dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) vide which the admission of the petitioner to B.Ed. (Regular) Course for the Session 2008-09 has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has more marks in qualifying examination as compared to many other students. The petitioner was given admission on 28.11.2008 i.e. before the cut off date prescribed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008, tiled ‘Association of Education Colleges (Self-Financing) of Haryana vs. State of Haryana and Others’, decided on 21.11.2008. In case the order of cancellation of admission is allowed to stand, one seat would go waste and it would be against the spirit of the judgment. The judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008 has been considered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1060 of 2009, titled ‘Ms. Pooja vs. Kurukshetra University’, decided on 16.2.2009 and relief has been given to that petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to distinguish the facts of the present case with those in Ms. Pooja’s case (supra).

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner was given admission on 28.11.2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got higher marks in qualifying examination i.e. B.A., as compared to many other students admitted in the College. The eligibility of the petitioner for admission is also not in dispute.

Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008 was filed by Association of Education Colleges (Self-Financing) of Haryana which was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court. The facts brought out before this Court were that 28,000 seats were lying vacant and unfilled for admission to B.Ed. course in the State of Haryana. Prayer was made that the merit in qualifying exam be taken into account and admission be granted so as not to waste the resources. The petition was allowed in part on 21.11.2008. It has been held that the colleges duly recognized by NCTE and affiliated to the universities who have been included in the list of colleges eligible for admitting students by the University by holding the CET shall be free to fill up the seats that are lying vacant by admitting suitable candidates eligible for such admissions to B.Ed. courses. It has further been held that the admission would be made only on the basis of merit of the candidates in the qualifying examination. The colleges shall conclude the admission process and submit a list of the candidates admitted by them to the university concerned by 05.12.2008. Such of the colleges, so as to make admissions against the excess seats pursuant to the order, shall take steps to ensure that special classes are held by them so that the candidates are in a position to complete 180 study days and other requirements of attendance and practice teaching etc. The academic standard stipulated for the course shall, however, not be relaxed. The admissions granted shall not exceed the intake capacity of the colleges.

In the case of Ms. Pooja (supra), similar issue has been considered by this Court and relief has been allowed on the analogy that seat would go waste in the College which would result in wastage of resources. It would be against the spirit of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.17284 of 2008. Considering the above, this petition is allowed. Letter dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed. The petitioner accordingly would be allowed to pursue her studies.

(AJAI LAMBA)
JUDGE

DEEPTI MALHOTRA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.

LPA No.319 of 2009 in CWP No.6091 of 2009

Date of decision: 1.7.2009

Deepti Malhotra ...Appellant.
vs.
Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra and another ..Respondents.

CORAM:
HON BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA.

Present:
Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

J.S.KHEHAR,J.
1). The State Government authorised the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra to invite applications from eligible candidates for taking a Common Entrance Test for admission to the B.Ed course for the academic session 2008-09.

2). The appellant who was desirous of taking admission to the B.Ed course applied for the same. In response to her application she was issued Roll No.8200820 for appearing in the Common Entrance Test. She actually appeared in the aforesaid Common Entrance Test, wherein, she was placed at serial No.20380, based on the marks obtained by the appellant in the Common Entrance Test, she was granted admission to undergo the B.Ed course atVishwa Bharti College of Education, Jagadhri.

3). It would be pertinent to mention that as per the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, candidates who had obtained at least 45% marks in the Bachelor s and/or Master s degree issued by certain defined universities, or any other equivalent qualification, were eligible for the aforesaid course. In the application form submitted by the appellant, she had while filling up Serial No.17 of the application form recorded she she had qualified the B.Sc examination from the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra under Roll No. 1013500, having taken the aforesaid examination in the subjects of physics, chemistry and mathematics. She also asserted at serial No.17 of the application form, that she had obtained 694 marks out of a maximum of 1450 marks while equalifying the B.Sc examination. In the last column at serial No.17, she also depicted the percentage of marks obtained by her i.e., 47.8% in the aforesaid B.Sc
examination.

4). It is not a matter of dispute that after being allowed admission to the Vishwa Bharti College of Education,Jagadhri, the appellant started to attend her classes in the aforesaid college with effect from 23.9.2008, and she continued to do so till 13.3.2009.

5). It is the case of the appellant that on 4.4.2009, she was handed over a letter dated 29.1.2009 by the Vishwa Bharti College of Education Jagadhri, informing her that her admission has been cancelled on the basis of a communication dated 22.1.2009 reeived from the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra.

6). The appellant impugned the aforesaid orders dated 29.1.2009 and 22.1.2009 by filing CWP No.6091 of 2009. The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by a lerned Single Judge of this Court on 23.4.2009.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, so as to impugn the orders dated 22.1.2009, 29.1.2009, as also, the order rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2009.

7). On 4.5.2009, this Court issued notice of motion. Since CWP No.6091 of 2009, was dismissed without issuing notice, it is apparent that no reply was filed by the respondents at the writ stage. In order to place the factual position on the record of this case, respondent No.1 i.e., the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, has moved Civil Miscellaneous No.1235 of 2009, to place on the record of this case the inquiry report dated 15.4.2009, which was conducted by the respondents, to examine how the appellant came to be admitted to the B.Ed course. The prayer made in the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Application, was not opposed.

Accordingly, the aforesaid civil miscellaneous application is allowed, and the inquiry report dated 15.4.2009, is permitted to be taken on record.

8). The first contention advanced by the learned coounsel for the appellant while advancing his submissions in the instant appeal was, that as per the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, general category candidates having 45% marks in the Bachelor s degree were to be considered eligible for admission to the B.Ed course. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had secured 694 marks out of a maximum of 1450 marks, i.e., 47.8% marks in the qualifying examination (i.e., the B.Sc examination conducted by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra) and as such was fully eligible to be granted admission to the B.Ed course. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was
rightfully allowed admission to the aforesaid course by treating her eligible, in view of her merit position in the Common Entrance Test, conducted by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the action of the respondents in cancelling the admission granted to the appellant to the B.Ed course vide orders dated 22.1.2009 and 29.1.2009 (referred to above) is liable to be set aside. For the same reasons, as has been noticed hereinabove, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge is also liable to be set aside.

9). The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, has expressly been pressed in paragraph 5(iv) of the instant Letters Patent Appeal. So as to substantiate her claim of eligibility the appellant has placed reliance on Annexure P-8 i.e., the Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card issued to the appellant-Deepti Malhotra by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, in respect of the B.Sc.Part-III (General) Examination, held in April 2008. In the aforesaid Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card, the result of a candidate is declared under one of four heads.

The four heads depicted under the Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card taken from Annexure P-8 are being extracted hereunder:-

1. Passed and has obtained ( hundered and marks)

2. Compartment: He/She is required to re-appear in the subject Physics (I) (II) till April 2009

3. Failed:He/She is required to re-appear in the whole Examination next time, if otherwise eligible.

4. Result Cancelled due to Failure in Lower Examination While declaring the result of the appellant vide Annexure-P8 Serial Nos. 1, 3 and 4 had been cancelled. Serial No.2 was depicted as under:-

2. Compartment: He She is required to re-appear in subject Physics (I)(II) till April 2009 .

It is apparent from the Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card of the appellant placed on the record of the writ petition as Annexure P8, that she had actually not passed the aforesaid examination. Had she passed the aforesaid examination her details would have been declared under head-1 extracted hereinabove, whereas, it is clear from the factual position recorded hereinabove, that her result was declared under head-2, as she had merely been placed under compartment, on account of not having been able to qualify the subject of physics. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant had made a false representation in the application form, wherein, she depicted that she had obtained 694 marks out of the maximum of 1450 marks in the B.Sc examination, and that, she had qualified the said examination with
47.8 % marks. The depiction of percentage of marks, is possible only when a candidate qualifies an examination. The depiction of 47.8 % marks at the hands of the appellant was therefore, a categoric misrepresentation at her hands for deceitfully obtaining admission. In Civil Miscellaneous No.1235 of 2009, filed on behalf of the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra, it has been emphasised that the appellant filled up the form depicting falsely that she had passed her B.Sc. examination. The application reveals that at the time of her consideration for admission she had informed the authorities that the detailed marks certificate issued to her had been misplaced and further that, she had applied for a duplicate Detailed Marks Certificate. In the Civil Miscellaneous Application, it is also revealed that the appellant appeared in the compartment examination in the subject of physics in October 2009, the result whereof was declared on 2.1.2009, but the appellant s individual compartment result was declared on 30.1.2009,
wherein she qualified the compartment examination of the subject of physics in which she had been placed under compartment. The inquiry report appended to the Civil Miscellaneous Application as Annexure R1/1 reveals that even while appear before the Admission Committee of the Vishwa Bharti College of Education,Jagadhri, the appellant told the Admission Committee of the College that her Detailed Marks Card of the B.Sc examination had been misplaced, and that she had applied for a duplicate copy thereof. She also affirmed before the Admission Committee that the marks mentioned by her in the admission form were true and correct. On the basis of the representation made by the appellant before the Admission Committee, her oral statement was accepted and she was
granted admission to the B.Ed course. But it transpired later that she had manipulated her admission by falsely depicting in her application form,that she had been awarded 694 marks out of a maximum of 1450 marks in the B.Sc examination, and that, she had qualified the same by obtaining 47.8% marks.

10). In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, we are of the view that the appellant manipulated her admission to the B.Ed course. It is clear from the extract of Annexure P8, reproduced hereinabove, that the appellant was only placed under compartment as she had failed to qualify the physics examination of the B.Sc Part-III (General)Examination in April 2008. She had not passed the said compartment. Had she qualified the aforesaid exmination her result would have been declared as passed under head-1 (extracted in paragraph 9 above) whereas, her result was declared under head-2, as she had been placed under compartment. We have no doubt in our mind that the appellant could not have sought admission to the B.Ed course on the strength Result-cum- Detailed Marks Card Annexure P8,as she had not qualified the B.Sc examination in terms of the prospectus issued by the Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra. As such, we find no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.

11). The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has persuaded the B.Ed course ever since the commencement of the aforesaid course with effect from 23.9.2008 till 13.3.2009.. In conjunction with the above, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has now cleared the compartment examination, and as such, she should be allowd to pursue the B.Ed course in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

12). It is not possible for us to accept even the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has not invited our attention to any provision under which the appellant could have been allowed admission to the B.Ed course, consequent upon the declaration of her result on 30.1.2009, whereby, the appellant qualified the B.Sc examination. The addition of marks at the hands of the appellant depicting the number of marks she had obtained in the B.Sc examination , as also her assertion, that she had qualified the aforesaid examination with 47.8 % marks was a matter of express misrepresentation at her hands.

Allowing her admission on the basis of having qualified the compartment examination in January 2009,and to take an equitable view of the matter as she has attended the curriculum of the course from 23.9.2008 to 13.3.2009, would result in perpetuating the fraud committed by the appellant. The instant act of seeking admission by way of deceit cannot be countenanced.

In the absence of any order, instruction, regulation, rule or statutory provision, whereby the last date for obtaining the minimum qualification for admission, can be extended beyond the date of finalisation of the admission process, the claim of the appellant cannot be acceded to.

13). No other contention, besides those noticed in the foregoing paragraphs were advanced on behalf of the appellant.

14). For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed.

( J.S.Khehar )
Judge

( H.S.Bhalla )
Judge

NEELAM SAINI Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND ANOTHER

CWP No. 9170 of 2009

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision: 26.08.2009

Neelam Saini
Vs.
Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra and another

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate,for the petitioner.
Mr.AS Virk, Advocate,for the respondent No.1.

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The petitioner passed B. Com. Part-III in April, 1997 and secured 827 marks out of 1850. The respondent-University issued advertisement for conducting State Level Common Entrance Test for regular B.Ed. Course for the Sessions 2008-2009. The petitioner also applied for consideration/admission.

She was issued Roll Number and allowed to participate in the examination conducted by the University.

She was placed at rank No.4294 in the Entrance Test and also granted admission in respondent No.2-College. The petitioner also deposited fee of Rs.40,520/- in September 2008. The petitioner was permitted to attend classes. It is stated that the petitioner was informed by the College that respondent No.1-University is not issuing the roll number for the annual examination. It is further stated that on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the she has been stopped from appearing
in the annual examination by the University having less than 45 per cent marks in the graduation and was ineligible for admission to B.Ed. Course. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition seeking a direction that she be issued roll number for appearing in the examination of B.Ed. to be held by respondent No.1-University in the month of June, 2009.

In the reply filed by respondent No.1-University, reference is made to the prospectus issued which, inter-alia, prescribed the
eligibility conditions for admission to B.Ed. Course. It is provided
that a candidate with at least 45 percent marks in the Bachelor Degree or in the Masters degree is eligible for admission to the course in question.

It is admitted position of the parties that the petitioner was having less than 45 percent marks. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has 44.75 percent marks in the B.Com. which was the qualifying examination for appearance in the Common Entrance Test. The petitioner was admittedly ineligible. The respondents have stated that admission of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 28.01.2009, copy whereof has been placed on record today in Court by Mr.Virk. The same is taken on the record of the case. This letter is addressed to respondent No.2. It appears that respondent No.2-College has not communicated this fact to the petitioner.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was ineligible at the time of her admission and, thus, the respondent-
University has rightly cancelled her admission to the course in
question.

The grievance of the petitioner is that she was permitted to appear in the Entrance Test. Even she has been admitted to the course and allocated the College. Fee deposited by her has also been accepted by the college. It is accordingly argued that the petitioner had legitimate expectation to continue with the course.

The argument of the petitioner though appears to be attractive, but suffers from total fallacy. The legitimate expectation cannot be extended to illegitimate purposes. The petitioner was found
ineligible. She was wrongly permitted to participate in the Entrance Test and subsequent admission to the course. Now the discrepancy has come to the notice of the respondents. The petitioner has no right to continue with the course contrary to the laid down norms.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to
costs.

However, it is observed that since the petitioner is found ineligible, respondent No.2 is directed to refund the fee deposited by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority.

The petitioner is also at liberty to seek compensation from the respondents for granting wrong admission, in accordance with law.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

DR R S MEHROTRAVsSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.19484 of 2009

Date of Decision : December 17, 2009

Dr. R.S Mehrotra ............ Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ........... Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

Present:
Mr. K.L Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to Rule 4 (vii) of of Kurukshetra University Employees Pension Scheme, 1997 (for short
Pension Scheme) as ultra vires to the extent it limits benefit of past
service towards qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits to the teachers/employee of the University coming from university/Aided Colleges/Autonomous bodies from the State of Haryana and/or Central Government only.

The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany, University of Saugar, Madhya Pradesh on
2.3.1964. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Reader in Botany in Kurukshetra University by letter of appointment dated 25.7.1970 after the petitioner applied for the said post through proper channel. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.1997. The petitioner has been granted pensionary benefits for the period from 7.9.1970 to 31.1.1997 i.e 26 years and 4 months but the benefit of service from 2.3.1964 to 6.9.1970 rendered by the petitioner in the University of Saugar, Madhya Pradesh was not granted for the purpose of pension.

Earlier petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court claiming benefit of the said past service for the purposes of pension. During
the course of final arguments in that writ petition, a statement was made before this Court that university has sent a proposal to amend the pension scheme by replacing an existing clause. The said writ petition was decided by this Court on 13.7.2009 on the basis of said statement. The said proposed clause has been incorporated in the pension Regulations subsequently. The amended Clause read as under:

(vii)The grant of benefit of past qualifying service towards pension to the University employees coming from State Govt. or autonomous body (both under the Govt. of Hayana) Central Govt. or Central
Autonomous Body and vice-versa will be regulated as per provisions contained in office letter No.1/2(77)- 87-2FR-II dated 22.8.1988 and No.1/2(4)-96-2FRII dated 7.1.2002 issued by the Govt. of Haryana, Finance Department or any other instructions issued in this regard by the State Govt. from time to time and adopted by the University.

The grievance of the petitioner is that restriction of the benefit of past service towards pension only to those employees who were earlier employees of the Universities or autonomous bodies situated in the State of Haryana or Universities or autonomous bodies of Government of Haryana or Central Government is discriminatory as the employees who have worked for a University recognized by University Grants Commission stand on the same footing as the Universities located in Haryana and are to be treated at par.

Therefore, the condition restricting the benefits to the employees of the University or autonomous bodies situated in the State of Haryana or Universities or autonomous bodies of Government of Haryana or Central Government is without any reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved and thus the said clause is discriminatory.

A Full Bench of this Court in K.R. Erry vs. The State of Punjab, ILR (1967) 1 Punjab and Haryana 278 has held that the pension is
not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet-will and pleasure of the Government and the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant. The Supreme Court has approved the aforesaid view taken by this Court in the case reported as Deokinandan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1971 SC 1409 and held that right to receive pension flows to the officer employee not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. In D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130 pensions to civil employees and the defence personnel as administered in India was held to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. It was found that pension is earned by rendering long and efficient service and, therefore, can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for the service rendered. It was held to the following effect:-

31. from the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso so Article 309 and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution, (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey days of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch...

In view of the aforesaid judgments, there is no difficulty in holding that the pension is not a bounty but is a reward for the past service.

But right to receive pension is a creation of Rule. There is no inherent right to receive pension de hors the Rules.

In terms of the Pension Scheme, the respondents have taken into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner under Kurukshetra University in the State of Haryana. The petitioner has not been granted the benefit of service rendered under the University of Saugar in the State of Madhya Pradesh, The Pension Scheme does not recognize the service rendered by the employee in any University in another State to be counted for the purpose of pension. The said classification cannot be said to be discriminatory.

The employees engaged by the State of Haryana or by the institutions located in the State of Haryana form a distinct class for such services either money is being paid out of the funds of the State or the employee has worked for the people of the State, whereas the petitioner having worked in the University of Saugar has not been paid either by the State of Haryana nor it was the service rendered to the residents of the State of Haryana. Thus, the respondents could frame Pension Scheme restricting payment of pension in the manner contemplated by clause (vii) of the Pension Scheme.

Somewhat identical issue came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in case reported as State of Bihar vs. S.A. Hassan and another, AIR 2002 SC 1258 wherein the benefit of service rendered by the employee in a private college before it was taken over by the Government was declined. The Supreme Court considered Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and held that such service does not qualify for pension as the three conditions i.e., (1) his service must be under Government, (2) the employment must be substantive and permanent, and (3) service must be paid by the Government, are not satisfied. In the present case, the grant of benefit of past service for the purpose of pension to the University
employees is restricted to the employees coming from the State Government or Autonomous bodies, both from the Government of Haryana and Central Government. Such condition is in tune with Rule 58 of Bihar Pension Rules considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision of payment of pensionary benefits to the employees of the State or to the Central
Government or autonomous bodies cannot be said to be arbitrary and without any objective to be achieved.

The argument that the University of Saugar is a University recognized by the University Grants Commission and, therefore, benefit of service rendered by the petitioner in such recognized University should be counted towards pensionary benefit, is not tenable. The recognition of University of Saugar by the University Grants Commission is for the purposes of degrees conferred by such University as equivalent to the degree conferred by other Universities. Still further, there is no mandate by the University Grants Commission that the pension is payable to the employees of the Autonomous Universities. In fact, in respect of superannuation benefits, it has been communicated on 24.12.1998 that superannuation benefit may be given as per Central / State Government Rules.

In view of the said fact, there is no mandate on behalf of the University Grants Commission to take into consideration the past service rendered by the petitioner to the University of Saugar as the period of qualifying service with the respondents for the purpose of pension.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that in terms of pensionary regulations, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of three years service as a Ph.D. degree holder. However, the record does not show that any such claim was earlier made by way of any representation or such claim has been considered by the University. Therefore, it shall be up to the petitioner to make a representation to claim such benefit. The same shall be considered by the University as and when it is submitted in accordance with law.

( HEMANT GUPTA )
JUDGE

( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE

JAI KISHAN SON OF SATYA NARAIN Vs PROF R P VAJPAYEE AND OTHERS

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

COCP No. 906 of 2009

Date of decision: December 3, 2009

Jai Kishan son of Satya Narain ..Petitioner
Versus
Prof. R.P.Vajpayee and others ..Respondents

Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

Present:
Mr.R.K.Malik,Sr. Advocate with
Mr. S.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate with
Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate for the respondents.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.)Oral)
An affidavit of Lt. Gen. Dr.D.D.S.Sandhu, Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has been filed wherein it has been submitted as under:-

That after due consideration the following recommendations were made by the Committee in its meeting held on 1.12.2009:-

The Committee has re-examined the case of Shri Jai Kishan, in its totality and it recommends that Shri Jai Kishan may be granted all the benefits of running grade, term of appointment and all the benefits which are admissible to the employes appointed for courses being run under Self- Financing Scheme of the University except pension, as have been granted to Ms. Tripti Chaudhary, Lecturer in English, Ms. Manjinder Gulyani, Lecturer in Law and Shri Ram Mehar Singh Punia, Lecturer in Sociology in the Institute of Law and that he may also be given the benefits of pay fixation including the benefit of regularization of service, except the arrears of pay.

That in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, the letter No. ET-5/09/16193 dated 2.12.2009 has been issued to Shri Jai Kishan and he has been directed to report for joining to the Director, Institute of Law, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. A copy of the letter issued to Shri Jai Kishan is enclosed as Annexure -1.

However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the aforesaid judgment passed by this court was to be complied with within one month from the date of order i.e., dated 29.9.2008 whereas he has been given the joining on 2.12.2009..

Be that as it may, since the order passed by this court has been complied with, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition.

Rule discharged.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation to the respondents with regard to payment of salary for the aforesaid period . If any
such representation is filed within two weeks from today, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE

VARUN KAUSHAL Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUSKHETRA AND OTHERS

CWP No.13799 of 2009

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Date of decision: 20.11.2009

Varun Kaushal ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others .. Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.SK Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.AS Virk, Advocate,for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
Mr.RS Kundu,Addl. AG, Haryana for respondent No.2.

PERMOD KOHLI, J.
The petitioner is a graduate from the Kurukshetra University.

He is serving with City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, Ambala Cantt., a private concern. He applied for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) pursuant to the Prospectus issued by respondent No.1-University for the Session 2007-08. His application was accepted and he was issued Admit Card with Roll No.300198 for appearance in the Entrance Test scheduled to be held on 15.07.2007 (Annexure P-5). He appeared in the Entrance Test and was placed at Rank No.48 out of 300 candidates. He reported for counselling held on 03.08.2007. During the course of counselling on scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner, his candidature was rejected on the ground that the Certificate of Employment has been issued by a private company which is not an autonomous organisation.

It is alleged that the petitioner again approached respondent No.3.

However, he was informed that autonomous organisation in the
University prospectus refers to only Government Organistion and not private autonomous companies like the one where the petitioner is serving. The grievance of the petitioner is that a number of candidates with lessor merit and below in rank in the Entrance Test have been admitted for in the course in question ignoring the right and claim of the petitioner. The petitioner served a legal notice dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-7) which was followed by other communications. It is stated that legal notice and the subsequent communications made by the petitioner through his counsel remained unattended as no response was received by him. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this petition seeking a direction for quashing the eligibility criteria of the Prospectus for the year 2007-08 provided for reservation to Government/Recognised Educational Institution Employees for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) being violative of Articles 14 and 15 (4) read with Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of India with a further writ of mandamus for a direction to respondents to admit the petitioner to the course in question.

The petition is being resisted by the University on the grounds of delay and laches, the same having been filed after a period of two years of denial of admission and on the grounds of petitioners ineligibility under the conditions of Prospectus.

The Prospectus issued by the University during the Session 2007-08, prescribes the eligibility for admission to LL.B.
(Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening), the same is quoted hereunder:-

III. ELIGIBILITY.

A. LL.B. (PROFESSIONAL) 3-YEAR DEGREE COURSE MORNING/ EVENING.

Bachelors Degree or Masters Degree (2- Year Course) Examination of the Kurukshetra University or any Examination recognized as equivalent thereto, with at least 45% marks in the aggregate (40%) for SC/ST candidates) (One Year Degree/Diploma Courses like, D.P.Ed., M.Ed., B.Ed., B. Lib. Sc. etc. shall not be considered as equivalent to Bachelors
Degree).

The candidates seeking admission to the Evening shift are required to submit an Employment Certificate of minimum two years regular service experience and of being bonafide and whole time regular employees of Government/ Semi-Government/Autonomous Organizations/Recognized Educational Institutions as per the Specimen of Employment
Certificate attached.

The following note was also given in the prospectus:

Note:
The course in the Evening Shift in University Campus will be confined to the bona fide and whole time regular employees of
Government/Semi-Government/Autonomous Organizations/Recognized Educational Institutions whose place of Employment should be within 70 kms. from the Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra and with minimum two years regular service.

The eligibility, thus, prescribed in the Prospectus is Bachelor or Masters Degree from Kurukshetra University or any other recognised Institution with at least 45% marks in aggregate for the general candidates and 40% for SC/ST candidates. For admission to Evening Course, a further condition was imposed that the candidate is required to submit an employment certificate of minimum two years regular service being a bonafide and whole time regular employee of Government/Semi Government/Autonomous Organisation/Recognised Educational Institution. The note appended to the aforesaid clause further clarifies that the admission to the course during the Evening Shift shall be open to whole time regular employees of the organisations mentioned hereinabove for such an employee whose place of employment is within 70 kms. from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

The petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents, primarily, on two counts: (i) that the Autonomous Organisation
contemplated by the Prospectus, inter-alia, include even a private company/organisation and (ii) that even if the private organisation is not included in the expression Autonomous Organisation, the condition of the Prospectus is discriminatory in nature and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 15 (4) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that confinement of admission to the evening course to the employees of the Government/Semi Government/Government Controlled Organisation amounts to 100% reservation for them which is totally illegal, invalid and unconstitutional.

In so far the question of admission to the employees of only
Government/Semi Government/Government Controlled Organisations is concerned, the issue has been set at rest by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Sibal Vs. Panjab University and another, AIR 1989, Supreme Court, 903.

The petitioner in the said case, was an employee of Agro Chemical Punjab Limited. While being an employee of the said corporation, he applied for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening) during the academic Session 1988-89. The Prospectus for admission issued by the University contained the following stipulation:-

Admission to evening classes is open only to regular employees of Government/Semi Government institutions/affiliated colleges/Statutory Corporations and Government Companies. A candidate applying for admission to the evening classes should attach No Objection/Permission letter from his present employer with his application for admission.

On the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, the petitioner therein was denied admission on the ground that he was an employee
of the Public Limited Company and thus, ineligible for admission to the evening course which is open only to the Government/Semi Government/Government Controlled Organisations. Civil Writ Petition filed by Deepak Sibal and another before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dismissed. In appeal preferred before the Honble Supreme Court, the question of validity of such a stipulation was examined wherein it has been held as under:-

14. It is difficult to accept the contention that the Government employees or the employees of Semi-Government and other institutions, as mentioned in the impugned rule, stand on a different footing from the employees of private concerns, in so far as the question of admission to evening classes is concerned. It is true that the service conditions of employees of
Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. are different and they may have greater security of service, but that hardly matters for the purpose of admission in the evening classes.

The test is whether the employees of private establishments are equally in a disadvantageous position like the employees of
Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. in attending morning classes. There can be no doubt and it is not disputed that both of them stand on an equal footing and there is no
difference between these two classes of employees in that regard. To exclude the employees of private establishment will not, therefore, satisfy the test of ineligible differentia that distinguishes the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. grouped together from the employees of private establishments. It is true that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, in that case the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one.

20. In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view Art. 14 of the Constitution, the Court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. In the instant case, the
foregoing discussion reveals that the classification of the employees of Government/ Semi-Government institutions etc.

by the impugned rule for the purpose of admission in the evening classes of Three Year LL.B. Degree Course to the exclusion of all other employees is unreasonable and unjust, as it does not subserve any fair and logical objective.

In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the condition
imposed by the respondents and interpretation sought to be placed regarding the Prospectus, cannot be accepted. The action of the respondents in denying the admission to the petitioner is totally unwarranted and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It appears that realising the aforesaid legal position, the University itself has amended its Prospectus in the subsequent years.

Mr.Virk has placed on record Prospectus for the years 2008-09 wherein though the eligibility clause remained unchanged, however, the Certificate of Employment require to be furnished by a candidate who is employed and seeks admission during the evening course has been prescribed as Annexure -VIII to the Prospectus. In the said Certificate the employees of the Private and created or registered or incorporated bodies are also made eligible. The relevant condition in the Certificate of Employment, thus, reads as under:-

........is a bona fide and whole time regular employee of _______________(Name and Place of Institution) which is Government/ Semi-Government/Autonomous Organization may be Government or Public or Private and created or registered or recognized or incorporated or controlled under same statute/Recognized Educational Institution.

The aforesaid position has been continued for the subsequent session 2009-10.

In view of the above position, the petitioner is declared to be eligible for admission to LL.B. (Professional) Three Year Degree Course (Evening).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be directed to be admitted in the course in question. He was illegally and wrongly denied admission during the Session 2007- 08. Denial of admission to the petitioner during Session 2007-08 is totally unjustified .

Two years have passed. The Session is likely to be completed.

At this stage, the petitioner cannot be granted admission with said batch. In so far admission in the current session is concerned, the course has already commenced.

Mr.Virk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University was asked to seek instructions regarding admission to the
petitioner in the current session. In response to the aforesaid direction issued vide order dated 21.10.2009, affidavit of Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, has been filed.

It has been stated in the affidavit that all the seats have been filled up and there is no vacant seat. Apart from that, it is stated that classes commenced on 03.07.2009 and the First Semester Examination is going to be held in the month of December, 2009.

In Deepak Sibals case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court had directed the admission of the petitioner therein and the seat which was to be allocated to them was directed to be in addition to the normal intake capacity. Applying the same principle, I direct that the petitioner be admitted to the current academic session of the course in question forthwith and the seat shall be deemed to be an additional seat and over and above the intake capacity of the University for which the University shall make appropriate recommendation to the Bar Council.

However, this additional seat shall be only during the current
academic session for the purpose of adjustment of the petitioner.

For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS Vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.534 of 1998

Date of Decision: 16.11.2009

Kurukshetra University and others .....Petitioners
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another....Respondents

Present:
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioners.
None for respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement and compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards back wages with continuity of service. The initial engagement of the workman had been made on work-charged basis for a period of six months on 14.01.1986. Later, a fresh appointment order was
issued on 07.04.1986 on ad hoc basis on a scale of Rs.600-1100 for a period of six months. This was again extended by a fresh letter of appointment on 14.07.1986 and two further extensions were given through orders dated 21.03.1987 and 22.04.1987. The last of such engagement enured to the workman right till 21.09.1987. After the expiry of the said period, there was no further extension, it gave rise to termination of service that was made the subject of challenge before the Labour Court on a reference sought through the Government. To a claim by the workman on the ground that he had completed 240 days of continuous service, the contention of the University was that the recruitment to the University was governed by Recruitment Rules and the minimum qualification for the post of Draftsman as prescribed under the Rules was three years diploma in Civil Engineering or diploma in Draftsman with two years experience.

The workman admittedly did not possess the minimum qualification that was necessary. The appointment itself had been ad hoc during the time when the construction was in progress and the respective orders of appointment specifically spelt out the periods of appointment and that they would not enure beyond the time when the regular appointment was made. It was brought out in evidence that such regular appointment had also been made as per the Recruitment Rules and therefore, there was no extension done to the workman.

2. The Labour Court found that in view of the fact that the workman had completed 240 days, the termination amounted to
retrenchment and for alleged violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act directed reinstatement. The order is bad
for two reasons. One, the appointments had been on specific
contracts delimiting his period of engagement upto a particular
period and when there had been no renewal of a contract, the
expiry of term of the contract constituted the termination, which
was excepted from the definition of Section 2(oo) by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Two, the appointment itself had been made on a contingency of
its operation till a regular appointment was made and it was the
contention of the management that such regular appointment had also been made. It shall also be noted that the workman himself had not the necessary minimum qualification and he could not have been also lawfully employed as per the Recruitment Rules.

The direction for reinstatement is clearly erroneous, for the termination that resulted by the operation of the period of
engagement coming to an end does not amount to retrenchment and consequently, there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be however no
direction as to costs.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE

DR BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR EDUCATION SOCEITY (REGD ) KHVsKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision: 07.10.2009

(1) CWP No.10761 of 2009
Dr.Bhim Rao Ambedkar Education Society (Regd.), Kheri Markanda, Kurukshetra through its President. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others. ... Respondents

(2) CWP No.11511 of 2009
United College Education, VPO Kaul, District Kaithal Raja Devi Goyal M/P College of Education, Village Bherian, P.O. Pehowa, District Kurukshetra , through its President. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents.

(3) CWP No.11107 of 2009
Raja Devi Goyal M/P College of Education, Village Bherian, P.O.
Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. ... Petitioners
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others. ... Respondents

(4) CWP No.11103 of 2009
Guru Gobind Nath Educational Institute, Kurukshetra and others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

(5) CWP No.11023 of 2009
Doon Valley Trust (Regd.) outside Jundla Gate Karnal through its
Chairman ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(6) CWP No.10989 of 2009
Mahavir Shiksha Samiti, 29, Wazir Chand Colony Karnal through its President. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(7) CWP No.10910 of 2009
Lala Amin Chand Monga Memorial Educational Trust, V andPO Ugala, Ambala, through its Chairman. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents.

(8) CWP No.10740 of 2009
Akash Education Society, 76, Arya Samaj Mandir Market, Hisar
through its Secretary and another ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents.

(9) CWP No.10741 of 2009
Akash Education Society, 76, Arya Samaj Mandir Market, Hisar
through its Secretary and another ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents.

(10) CWP No.10816 of 2009
Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust, Mullana, Distt. Ambala
through its President. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents.

(11) CWP No.10817 of 2009
Ambedkar Education Society (Regd.) Kheri Markanda, Kurukshetra
through its President. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(12) CWP No. 10818 of 2009
Sirsa Education Society, Sirsa (Regd.) through its Member. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(13) CWP No.10912 of 2009
Jeevan Chanan Mahavidyalaya Society (Regd.) Assandh, District
Karnal, through its Secretary. ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents.

(14) CWP No.10902 of 2009
Mata Shanti Devi Memorial Education Trust VandPO Ugala (Ambala)
through its Chairman. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(15) CWP No.10909 of 2009
Triveni Shiksha Samiti (Regd.), Hisar Road, Sirsa, through its Director…….. Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(16) CWP No.10913 of 2009
Jat Shiksha Samiti (Regd.) Jat College Building, Opposite Parade
Ground, Kaithal, through its member. ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

(17) CWP No.10930 of 2009
Jai Geetanjali College of Education, Village Marwa Kalan, Sub Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Chairman. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(18) CWP No.10946 of 2009
Brahmrishi College of Education, Brahmrishi Ashram, Virat Nagar,
Pinjore, District Panchkula through its Principal. ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents

(19) CWP No.10950 of 2009
Tau Devi Lal Memorial College of Education village Manana, District
Panipat through its General Secretary. ... Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents

(20) CWP No.11050 of 2009
Kanya Shiksha Samiti (Regd.),Fatehpur-Pundri,Kaithal through its
President. ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.RK Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Sajjan Malik, Advocate,
Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate,
Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra,Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Mr.Ashish Chopra, Advocate,
Mr.Parvindra Singh, Mr. Ram Chander, Mr.VK Jindal,
Mr.ND Kalra, Mr.Hemant Sarin, Ms.Alka Sarin,
Mr.Hemant Sarin, Mr.Akshay Bhan, Mr.RS Chahal and
Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr.SS Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, for the

State of Haryana.
Mr.AS Virk, Advocate,for the Kurukshetra University.
Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, with
Ms.Anamika Negi, Advocate, for M.D.University.
Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate,for the NCTE.

PERMOD KOHLI, J.
All these petitions are directed against the orders passed by the respondent-University to disaffiliate the petitioners for the Session
2008-2009 and debarring them from participating in the admission
process to B.Ed. (Regular) Course for the above session. All the
impugned orders contain a common ground for initiating action against the petitioners. Thus, all these writ petitions are being disposed of with this common judgment.

The petitioners are institutions run by the societies/trusts established in the State of Haryana in different areas to impart Education. All the institutions are duly recognised by the NCTE and
were affiliated to the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. For the
academic Session 2008-2009, the respondent-University had conducted a Common Entrance Test for making admissions to these institutions against their respective intake capacity. After holding the Common Entrance Test and the counselling, students were allocated to various institutions including the petitioners.

However, a number of seats remained unfilled which seems to have persuaded the Association of Education Colleges (Self Financing) of Haryana to approach this Court through the medium of CWP No.17284 of 2008. This writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2008 wherein a number of directions were issued. However, for the purpose of the decision of the controversy involved in these cases, direction No.iii is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:-

The College shall conclude the admission process and submit a list of the candidates admitted by them to the University concerned latest by 5th December, 2008. We make it clear that the Institutions shall not grant any admission to any candidate after 5th December,
2008 for the academic session 2008-09. In the event of violation of these directions, the University concerned and NCTE shall initiate
proceedings for withdrawal of recognition and for de-affiliating the defaulting College/Colleges.

It is alleged that the petitioners made admissions for the academic Session 2008-2009 within the stipulated period prescribed by this Court and also submitted the lists of the admissions made, to the
Kurukshetra University. It is, however, admitted position of the parties that the lists were received by the respondent-University from 08.12.2008 onwards. The University on its part interpreted the
aforesaid direction of this Court and found that the lists of the admissions made having been submitted beyond 5th December, 2008, the petitiones have violated the direction of this Court and the
petitioners are liable for action for disaffiliation. Consequently, the petitioners were served with letters. One of such letters is dated 24.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner in the present petition (CWP No.10761 of 2009). The contents of the letters are as
under:-

The list of students admitted to B.Ed. Course (regular) in consonance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana delivered on 21st November, 2008, in CWP No.17284 of 2008, was to be submitted on or before 5th December, 2008 positively, but you failed to submit the same by the said due date.

You are, therefore, requested to explain the reason(s) for not submitting the list of students admitted as per direction of the Court as above in time. Your reply must reach to the undersigned within 10 days from the date of issuance of this letter failing which it will be
presumed that you have nothing to say in this matter.

The petitioners replied to the aforesaid letters and pleaded that the admissions were made by 5th of December, 2008. In some of the petitions, it is pleaded that the representatives of the institutions
approached the respondent-University to submit the list of the
admissions made, but the officials of the University asked them to
bring the list on the next working day and, thus, the lists were
submitted on 8.12.2008. In some of the petitions, it is pleaded that the lists were sent through post and, thus, the same were received by the respondent-University after few days. It is also pleaded that 5th December, 2008, was Friday and 6th and 7th December, 2008, being holidays in the respondent-University, the lists could only be furnished on 08.12.2008.

Even after the receipt of the reply, the University Constituted a Sub-Committee and the said Sub-Committee made its recommendations which were considered by the University. The University is of the opinion that it was mandatory for the petitioners to furnish the list by 5th of December, 2008 and the same having been done later than the cut off date, action of the petitioners is violative of the direction of this Court warranting action for disaffiliation.

The impugned orders in all these writ petitions are on the similar lines. One of the impugned orders dated 16.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) attached with this writ petition, is reproduced hereunder:-

To
The President/Principal,
Mahabir College of Education for Women, Vill. Kheri Markhanda, Near Bus Stand, District Kurukshetra.

Sub:
Disaffiliation of Mahabir College of Education for Women, Vill. Kheri
Markhanda, Near Bus Stand, District Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra.

Sir/Madam,
This is with reference to your representation dated 26.06.09 to the Show Cause Notice served upon you vide this office letter No.CG-VI/09/77467 dated 19.06.2009.

In this connection, I am directed to inform you that your representation under reference has been considered by the Sub
Committee constituted by the Executive Council vide resolution No.66 dated 12.6.09.

Consequent upon the recommendations of the Sub Committee, it has been decided to disaffiliate your college w.e.f. the session 2009- 10 for not submitting the list of admitted students to B.Ed. (Regular) course for the session 2008-09 by the stipulated date of 5th December, 2008, thereby violating the directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.17284 of 2008. Hence,
your college is debarred from participating in the admission process and making admission to B.Ed. (Regular) course for the Session 2009-10.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-DEAN OF COLLEGES”.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the only ground for disaffiliation is the non-submission of the list of admitted students by 5th of December, 2008.

The University in its detailed reply also reiterated it stand as taken in the impugned order. It is stated that the petitioners having failed to submit the list of the admitted students within the period prescribed by this Court i.e. upto 5th December, 2008, the University constituted a three Members Sub-Committee comprising of (i) the Dean of the Colleges, (ii) Dr. VK Gupta,Principal, University College of Education,Kurukshetra and (iii) Prof. J.R. Dheer, Department of
Education, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. The Committee
submitted its report after taking into consideration the reply received by the University and recommended to initiate proceedings for disaffiliation against the defaulting colleges. Based upon the report of the Sub-Committee, the University issued Show Cause Notices to all the writ petitioners. The petitioners filed their respective replies to the Show Cause Notices. However, on consideration of the same, the impugned order noticed hereinabove, has been passed by the
University.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The solitary ground for disaffiliation is the alleged violation of the Court order dated 21.11.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.17284 of 2008. It is the case of the respondent-
University that the petitioners were required to make admissions by
5th December, 2008, for the academic session 2008-2009 and also to submit the lists of the admitted students on the same day.

I have carefully perused direction No.iii noticed hereinabove passed by a Division Bench of this Court. From the perusal of the above direction, it appears that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court directed the petitioners -Colleges to make admissions by 5th December, 2008 and to submit the lists of the admitted students to the University. There is nothing in the direction to make it mandatory for the petitioners-Colleges to submit the lists also by the same date. To the contrary, it appears that the only mandate of the Court was to make admissions by 5th December, 2008 and, thereafter, to submit the lists. This intention is clear from the following lines in the order of this Court:-

..........We make it clear that the institutions shall not grant any admission to any candidate after 5th December, 2008 for the academic session 2008-09.

The mandate is, thus, to make admissions by 5th December, 2008.

The first part of the order only directs to make admissions by 5th December, 2008 and to submit a list. There is nothing in the order of
Division Bench which can suggest the submission of the lists by 5th
December, 2008, which otherwise could not even be practicable. It
appears that the University has wrongly interpreted the Court order.

The true spirit and the mandate of the order was to make admissions by 5th December, 2008 and not thereafter in any eventuality.

Except non filing of the lists by 5th December, 2008, there is no allegation that any of the petitioners-College have made admissions beyond the cut off date prescribed by this Court or violated any other direction given by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the orders impugned in all these writ
petitions are not sustainable in law and are based upon totally
misconstruction, misconception and misunderstanding of the Court
order. The same are liable to be quashed. I order accordingly.

Vide interlocutory orders passed in different petitions, operation of the impugned order was stayed. Consequently, the petitioners have made admissions and the students are continuing with their studies.

The admissions made by the petitioners-Colleges shall stand regularised and affirmed.

All these writ petitions are allowed.

A copy of this order be placed on the record of each concerned file.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

SANDEEP RATHEEVsSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14272 OF 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 06, 2009

Sandeep Rathee .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:
Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with
Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr. K. C. Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the appointment of respondent No.4 as Guest Science Master, besides seeking direction for his appointment in place of respondent No.4. By making reference to the criteria formulated by the State Government for appointment to the post of Guest Teacher, it is pleaded that such appointment has to be strictly made on the basis of marks obtained in the prescribed qualification.

The petitioner and one Sunil Kumar appeared for appointment to the post of Guest Science Master on 12.11.2007. The petitioner has compared his marks in the qualifying exam with that of respondent No.4.

As per this, the petitioner had obtained 57.17% marks in B.Sc, 66.20% marks in B.Ed. making an average of 61.68%. On the other hand, respondent No.4 had obtained 59% marks in B.Sc. and 60% marks in B.Ed. making an average of 59.5%. The petitioner would urge that selection has been made only on the basis of B.Sc. qualification, which would be against the criteria and, thus, has impugned the selection of respondent No.4. This claim of the petitioner is in serious dispute as can be seen from the averments made in the reply. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce any original certificate and had rather produced a photo copy of the certificate bearing Sr.No.4734, Roll No.8003. In this certificate, the petitioner was shown to have obtained 829 marks in B.Sc. and 662 marks in B.Ed. Committee at that stage found that the marks obtained, as disclosed by the petitioner in B.Sc. Qualification, the serial number and Roll Number were different than shown by the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce the original certificate. Though the petitioner was denied appointment on this short ground but the actual fact would be apparent from the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4. He would disclose the reason for which the petitioner did not show the original certificate. It is disclosed that the petitioner had manipulated the attested photo copy of the final Detailed Marks Certificate of B.Sc. The petitioner had produced a certificate showing grand total as 829 marks in B.Sc. Part I and Part II and 192 marks in Part III. This forgery could be detected as the petitioner had earlier applied for the post of Guest Science Master in the same very School, where he had produced the detailed marks certificate of the B.Sc examination with the same Roll Number and Serial number, giving out grand total marks as 697 out of which 506 marks were obtained in Part I and Part II examination and 191 marks in Part III examination. Copy of
this detailed marks certificate is annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.4 as Annexure R4/1. It is, thus, pleaded that the petitioner had produced a forged and fabricated mark sheet.

When this issue arose before the Court, the officiating Principal of the School was directed to be present in person alongwith the record. When the petitioner continued to dispute the actual marks obtained by him in B.Sc. Course, directions were issued to the Registrar, Kurukshetra University to intimate the marks obtained by the petitioner year/subject-wise. Vide order dated 15.4.2009, it was noticed that photo copies of Annexures P-5 to P-7 were sent to the Registrar, Kurukshetra University to enable him to inform the Court as to the veracity of the claim made by the petitioner. The report was placed on record in which it was mentioned that there was over-writing in the result sheet, whereby the petitioner had substantially increased his marks. This Court accordingly noticed that this would reveal an attempt to produce false evidence. The counsel for the petitioner then prayed for time to respond to this report.

On his request, Kurukshetra University was impleaded as respondent No.5 through Registrar. The counsel representing the University then took time to file reply and also pointed out that enquiry was being conducted. In view of this falsehood, there was no case made out for further proceedings, yet on insistence by counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned to enable the University to place on record the enquiry proceedings.

This Court had accordingly adjourned the case to see as to what further action is required to be directed against the petitioner for committing this forgery. The enquiry conducted by the University has now been placed on record and would show the actual fact. The enquiry has found tempering in the detailed marks certificate issued to the petitioner.

Finding this, the Committee has recommended that the detailed marks certificate and degree issued in respect of the mentioned roll number be cancelled with immediate effect. The Committee has further recommended that there is a clear case of tempering with the documents and forgery for which the University may file an FIR against the petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in the plea raised by the petitioner to seek his appointment as Guest Science Teacher.

As per the details noticed above, the petitioner has been found to have forged/tempered his detailed marks certificate, which is a serious issue.

Though it is recommended that detailed marks certificate or degree be cancelled and FIR be lodged but it is not clear as to what further action has been taken. Very serious allegations are standing against the petitioner. This issue can not be left at that. The act and conduct of the petitioner would disclose commission of serious criminal offences. The University and the State, therefore, would be under obligation to bring this case to its logical conclusion. Directions, therefore, are issued to the
respondent-State and the University to proceed further against the petitioner by initiating criminal and/or other proceedings to cancel the degree etc. Needless to observe that the action against the petitioner would follow by observing due process of law, giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.

The writ petition shall stand dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the costs of this litigation, which is assessed as Rs.10,000/-.

( RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE

JASPAL SINGHVsKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 14662 of 2009

DATE OF DECISION : 18.09.2009

Jaspal Singh ... PETITIONER
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents not to conduct the meeting, which is called for 18.9.2009 i.e. today itself at 11.30 AM. The petitioner further seeks directions to the
respondent No.1 not to allow the prayer of respondent No.4 to promote him as SDO by relaxing the minimum qualification.

Since the meeting has not been held and no decision has been taken so far, therefore, counsel states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition being pre-mature.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

BALJINDER SINGH DAHIYAVsKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 14475 of 2009

DATE OF DECISION : 16.09.2009

Baljinder Singh Dahiya ... PETITIONER
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who at present is working as Junior Engineer in Construction Branch, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, has filed the
instant petition for quashing the promotion order dated 20.7.2009, whereby respondent No.3, who was also working as Junor Engineer, has been promoted to the post of SDO (Civil).

It is the admitted position that the petitioner, respondent No.3 and one Rajesh Monga were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) by way of direct recruitment against the advertisement dated 8.12.1992 (Annexure P- 2).

It is also conceded position, as indicated in the information (Annexure P-
12), received by the petitioner from the respondent University, that the
selection committee recommended respondent No.3, petitioner and Rajesh Monga, for appointment as Junior Engineer, and placed them at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. It is also conceded position that promotion to the post of SDO (Civil) is to be made on the basis of seniority.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the promotion of respondent No.3 on the ground that he was junior to the petitioner, as they both joined the service on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the same day i.e. on 23.4.1993 and since in age, the petitioner is older to respondent No.3, therefore, he was senior to respondent No.3. This contention cannot be accepted, in view of Rule 11 of the Service Rules,
which provides that the inter-se seniority of persons selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be in the order of merit, determined by the Selection Committee, irrespective of the date on which such a person joins or is confirmed subsequently. In the Rule, it is further provided that in case of two or more members, joining their posts on the same day, their seniority shall be determined as follows :

(a) In the case of members recruited by direct recruitment, their seniority
shall be in the order of merit assigned by the Selection Committee.

(b) A member recruited by promotion shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise.

(c) In the case of members recruited by promotion, seniority shall be
determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointment from which they were promoted.

In view of the aforesaid Rule, the age cannot be a factor for determining the seniority in case of the petitioner and respondent No.3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no criteria fixed by the Selection Committee for fixing the merit, therefore, the recommendation of the Selection Committee in the year 1993 cannot be taken as a factor for determining the seniority. This contention also cannot be accepted. Once the Selection Committee recommended the names in a direct recruitment in order of merit, the seniority of selected candidates will be determined in order of the said merit, irrespective of their date of joining or their age. Furthermore, the petitioner did not challenge the merit position, when the Selection Committee recommended his name for appointment as Junior Engineer in order of merit in the year 1993. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual position, respondent No.3 has rightly been promoted to the post of SDO (Civil), being senior to the petition.

No merit.

Dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

BIJENDER SINGH DAHIYAVsKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 14207 of 2009

DATE OF DECISION : 11.09.2009

Bijender Singh Dahiya ... PETITIONER
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. (Oral )
Counsel states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

SAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERSVsTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRM-M 10062 of 2009

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Decided on Sept 11,2009.

Sajjan Singh and others -- Petitioners
vs.
The State of Haryana and others --Respondents.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present:
Mr.Pankaj Maini,Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr.Ajit Sihag,Advocate, for the complainant.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case No.550 of 2006, titled as Smt.Santosh Vs. Harpal Singh and others, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar under Sections 342, 354,376,511 and 120-B IPC.

The allegations contained in the FIR are that the complainant is posted as a constable in Police Department. She is married to Krishan Kumar son of Rattan Kumar. On 19.1.2006, she remained on duty till night in Youth Festival organised at Kurkshetra University, Kurukshetra. The complainant had to appear in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar on 20.1.2006 titled as Vinod Vs. Santosh. The said matter was settled on a compromise between the complainant and said Vinod for a sum of Rs.32,000/-. As the complainant had to appear in the Court on 0.1.2006, so on 19.1.2006, after finishing her duty, she accompanied by her husband Krishan Kumar and one friend Dharampal son of Mam Chand, came to Hisar bus stand at 1.30.a.m in the night of 19/20.1.2006. When they were in search of some hotel or inn, Sajjan Singh Head Constable No.731 and Rajinder Singh Constable No. 424, non-applicant who were then posted at Police Post, Bus Stand, Police Station, City Hisar, came to them and took them to police post. They started teasing the complainant and when she resisted, said petitioner No.1 (Sajjan Singh)
and Rajinder Singh (non-applicant) telephonically called Harpal Singh
SI/SHO (Petitioner No.3), Inderjit constable (petitioner No.2) and Dev
Raj constable (non-applicant), who came there in a jeep driven by Mahinder Singh (non-applicant). They brought the complainant and her
companions to police station, Hisar at about 2.30.a.m. where petitioner
No.3 dragged the complainant in a room and raped her. Thereafter,
petitioner No.1 and Rajinder Singh (non-applicant) also raped her. The
entire incident was witnessed by her husband and husband's friend
Dharam Pal. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 and non-applicants Dev Raj
constable and Mahinder Singh also came there. They also tried to outrage her modesty. On the morning of 20.1.2006, when she asked them to get her medicolegally examined, they got furious and assaulted
her husband and his friend and illegally confined them in police station, City Hisar till 5.30.p.m. Thereafter, Surinder Kaur, Inspector, C.A.W, Cell, DPO, Hisar (non-applicant), Raj Dulari ASI No.38 Fatehabad, police Station, City Hisar (non-applicant) and Raj Kumar EHC No.122, Police Station, City, Hisar (non-applicant) were called there, who implicated the complainant in a false case registered vide FIR No.43 dated 20.1.2006 under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956. It is also alleged that on 20.1.2006, an amount of Rs.32,000/- was also taken in her jamatalashi which the complainant was carrying for the purpose of settlement with Vinod with whom she had a case under the Negotiable Instrument Act, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. It is also alleged that out of Rs.32,000/-,Rs.30,000/- have been shown in the jamatalashi. Since on 20.1.2006, the complainant could not appear in her case, non bailable warrants were issued against her and she could not settle her dispute with said Vinod. However, subsequently, she appeared in her case and paid the said amount to the complainant (Vinod Kumar) thereafter.

In order to support the averments made in the complaint, at the time of preliminary hearing, the complainant appeared as PW-7, Dharam Pal as PW-1, Krishan Kumar (husband of the complainant) as PW-2, Sanjiv Kumar Clerk as PW-3, Head Constable Ramesh Kumar as PW-4, Pehlad Singh ASI, PW-5, Roop Chand Clerk as PW-6.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Hisar, vide her order dated 26.2.2008, summoned the present petitioners, holding as under:-

Consequently, a prima facie case for commission of offence under Sections 342,354,376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of IPC is made out against the accused Nos.1 to 6 and a prima facie case for commission of offence under Section 218 read with Section 120-B IPC is made out against accused Nos. 7 to 9.

Afraid of being arrested, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Hisar, on 18.3.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant has filed this complaint after a delay of 10 months of the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioners had appeared before the Court below and have been released on interim bail.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that it is a case where a lady police constable has been raped by police officers/officials in percints the police station itself and the Court has found all of them prima facie guilty of the offences as per its order dated 26.2.2008. Therefore, the petitioners do not at all deserve concession of pre-arrest bail.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the seriousness of allegations as well as the facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar Jain)
Judge

MANJU DHANDAVsTHE VICE CHANCELLOR KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 13907 of 2009

DATE OF DECISION : 07.09.2009

Manju Dhanda ... PETITIONER
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others
..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

Present:
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
After arguing for some time, when the Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition, without prejudice to her right to avail her other remedies.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE

AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CWP 11725 of 1999



DR B R AMBEDKAR TEACHERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS CWP 17496 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

m, Date of decision : October 3, 2008

Dr. B.R Ambedkar Teachers Welfare Asso. ............Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University and others ...........Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

Present:
Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest?

M.M KUMAR, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action on behalf of the aggrieved person.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

( M.M KUMAR )
JUDGE

( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE

OM PARKASH Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS CWP 9649 of 2008

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Date of decision: 24.9.2008

Om Parkash ..Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University and others ..Respondents

Coram:
Honble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar
Honble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

Present:
Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Goel, Advocate for the respondents.

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

M.M.KUMAR,J.
The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to accord him seniority keeping in view the date of appointment and also to grant culminating benefits . In the written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the respondents have taken the stand that there is no change in the seniority and the cutting pointed out by the petitioner was relatable to the case of reposting of other Clerks and not regarding their position in the seniority list. It has been clarified that presumption of the petitioner that seniority has been disturbed is absolutely wrong and without any basis. Therefore, the issue of change in the seniority has been concluded.

With regard to the grant of other reliefs of culminating benefits, it has been conceded that the petitioner along with other was allowed Ist ACP Scale of Rs.4000-6000. According to which, it has further been asserted that Ist ACP Scale is admissible to an employee on completion of 10 years of regular satisfactory service and the second ACP Scale is to be granted on completion of 20 years regular satisfactory service. The stand taken by the respondents is that there was inadvertent mistake on part of the department in granting the benefit to the petitioner with effect from 1.2.2004, whereas it was admissible to him from
1.11.2004. It has been pleaded that due to misunderstanding that the ACP Scale was to be given on first of next month when an employee completes 10 years of service, it was granted. The petitioner completes 10 years of service on 17.1.2004 and that is why, he was granted Ist ACP with effect from 1.2.2004 though he was entitled for the same with effect from 1.11.2004, i.e., from the date persons juniors to him were granted the benefit of Ist ACP. It is conceded position that no notice has been given before order withdrawing the benefit was passed. Therefore, action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the
petitioner is liable to be set aside.

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The seniority of the petitioner shall be kept intact and the recovery effected from the salary of the petitioner shall be refunded to him. However, it shall not debar the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter for correcting the mistake, if any, by proceeding in accordance with law.

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE

VIJAY SINGH Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS CWP 16003 of 2008

CWP No.16003 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : September 9, 2008

Vijay Singh ............Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University and others ...........Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

Present:
Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

M.M KUMAR, J
Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to approve the selection of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in History and further to direct respondent no.3 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has already filed a representation dated 18.8.2008 (Annexure P-6), however, no reply is stated to have been
received.

Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct respondent no.2-Commissioner, Higher Education, Shiksha Sada, Sector 5, Panchkula to decide the representation dated 18.8.2008 (Annexure P-6) within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

( M.M KUMAR )
JUDGE

( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE

SONU SWAMI @ SONIA GAUTAM Vs VICE CHANCELLOR KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY CWP 11779 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 21.8.2008

Sonu Swami @ Sonia Gautam ..Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University ...Respondents and others.

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the name of the petitioner has been allowed to be changed from Sonia Gautam to Sonu Swami, therefore, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

The aforementioned fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The respondents are now directed to issue the revised detailed mark-sheet as well as all other documents giving the correct name of the petitioner.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE

RAI SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERISITY KURUKSHETRA CWP 2246 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: August 18 2008

Rai Singh and another -----Petitioners
Vs.
Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra -----Respondent

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Mr. Akshay Goel Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. SC Sibal Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Saurav Verma Advocate for the respondent.

Adarsh Kumar GoelJ.
1. This writ petition seeks quashing of Clause 4 (vi) of Kurukshetra University Employees’ pension Scheme/Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) providing that the period
spent on contract basis is not to be counted as qualifying service for pension which is as under:-

(vi) (a) The period spent on contract basis and
also service paid from contingency or CWP No.2246 of 2008 apprenticeship shall not count as qualifying service for pension.

b) The period spent on adhoc basis in this University shall be counted as qualifying service
for pension provided such services count for increment as per instructions given in the letter
No.F.D.Hr.No.1/2 (1) -80-2 FRII dated 31.1.1984
(Annexure C).

2. Case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as daily wagers between 22.1.1994 to 16.12.1996. Nomenclature of their appointment was changed to Securitymen on ‘contract basis’.

They continued to work in that capacity till their services were regularized as per policy of the Haryana Government dated 1.10.2003 Annexure P.1. Under the impugned provision an employee who completes 10 years of qualifying service is entitled to pension. The period spent on contract basis is not counted as qualifying service though period spent on ad hoc or work charge basis is counted for pension.

3. Stand of the respondent-University is that vide order dated 13.9.2007 Annexure P.7 claim for the petitioners was considered and rejected under the rules. It has been further submitted that adhoc employees were entitled to count their service as they are paid regular pay but contractual or daily wagers are not paid regular pay and therefore their services could not be counted for the purpose of pension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others 1988(2) PLR 223 wherein validity of Rule 3.17 (ii) of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II was considered which provided for temporary or officiating service followed by regularization to be counted as qualifying service but excluded period of service in work charge establishment.

It was held that if temporary or officiating service was to be counted towards qualifying service it was illogical that period of service in a work charge establishment was not counted.

6. As held in Kesar Chand (supra) pension is not a bounty and is for the service rendered. It is a social welfare measure to meet hardship in the old age. The employees can certainly be classified on rational basis for the purpose of grant or denial of pension. A cut off date can also be fixed unless the same is arbitrary or discriminatory. In absence of valid classification discriminatory treatment is not permissible.

7. Once the employees have been regularised and are held entitled to pension by counting adhoc service exclusion of service on contract basis will be discriminatory. Appointment on
contract basis is a type of adhoc service. Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given or increments are not given is no ground to treat the said service differently.

Beneficial provision for pension having been extended to adhoc employees denial of the said benefit to employees working on contract basis
who also stand on same footing as employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot be held to be having any rational basis. Judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand (supra) is fully applicable.

8. Accordingly we allow this writ petition and declare that the contractual employees who have rendered continuous service (ignoring nominal breaks) followed by regularization in a pensionable establishment will be entitled to be treated at par with adhoc employees in such establishments for counting their qualifying service for pension.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge

(Rakesh Kumar Garg)
Judge

DHARAM CHAND VIDYALANKAR Vs KURUKSHETRA UNVIVERISITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS Civil Writ Petition 12697 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: August 14 2008

Dharam Chand Vidyalankar -----Petitioner
Vs.
Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and others
-----Respondents

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present:
Mr. Raman Sharma Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Goyal Advocate for respondent Nos.12
and 4.

Adarsh Kumar GoelJ.
1. This petition seeks quashing of appointment of
respondent No.3 as Reader in the department of Hindi in the Kurukshetra University.

CWP No.12697 of 2007
2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of
advertisement issued in April 2006 the petitioner applied for the post of Reader in the department of Hindi. The Selection Committee recommended name of respondent No.3 who was accordingly appointed to the said post.

3. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that constitution of selection committee was not proper one of the experts was not in the panel and another expert was being called consecutively for the last five times.

4. Stand on behalf of the University is that the petitioner himself having participated in the selection process is estopped from challenging the selection on the ground of defect in constitution of the selection committee. The Vice Chancellor was authorized to add names to the panel of experts and there was no bar to an expert being called for more than five times. Respondent
No.3 was selected on the basis of his performance of which the selection committee was the final judge.

5. Learned counsel for the University has also handed over a copy of the report of the selection committee showing that Vice Chancellor and other members of the selection committee duly attended the meeting and quorum was complete.

6. It is well settled that this Court does not sit as appellate authority over the decision of selection committee if the selection is fair objective and legal. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan 1990(1) SCC 305 Para 12 : AIR 1990 SC 434 National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman 1992 Supp.(2) SCC 481 : AIR 1992 SC 1806 and M.V.Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others 2008(2) SCC 119.

7. We do not find any ground to interfere with the
selection of respondent No.3.

8. The petition is dismissed.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge

(Rakesh Kumar Garg)
Judge

SMT MONICA GUPTA Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY ETC CWP 6356 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 05.08.2008

Smt. Monica Gupta .......Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University etc. .......Respondents

Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Present:
Mr. Subhash Ahuja Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. C B Goel Advocate for the respondents

N IRMALJIT KAUR J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Fine Arts if any regular appointments are made in future along with other candidates if she is found eligible and applies for the same. The counsel for the respondent has no objection to such a direction.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties the present writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent-University that as and when the respondent-University decides to make regular appointment the petitioner will be duly considered against the post of Lecturer in Fine Arts along with other candidates provided she applies for the same and is found eligible. The said appointment shall be in accordance with law.

[NIRMALJIT KAUR]
JUDGE

C M No. 12335 of 2008 in CWP No. 6356 of 2004

Present:
Mr. Subhash Ahuja Advocate for the petitioner

Notice of the C.M. to counsel opposite.

Mr. C.B.Goel Advocate who is present in the Court accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-University.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing today itself.

Application stands disposed of.

(NIRMALJIT KAUR)
JUDGE

MAA SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS Vs KKR UNI KKR Civil Writ Petition 8421 of 2008



ANITA DEVI Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA and ORS CWP 5486 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: May 8, 2008

ANITA DEVI ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
KURUSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA ...RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

PRESENT:
MR. PARMINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. ANURAG GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 and 2.
MR. SUNIL NEHRA, AAG, HARYANA FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been filed in
Court. The same is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he be allowed to withdraw the writ petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

CHARU SINGHAL AND ORS Vs KURUKSHETRA UNI AND ORS CWP 7299 o f 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: May 6, 2008

CHARU SINGHAL AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
...RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

PRESENT:
MR. VIJAY SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
The controversy involved in this writ petition is similar to CWP No.5564 of 2008, which has been dismissed.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed in the same terms as CWP No.5564 of 2008.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

PARDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CWP 5617 OF 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: 06.05.2008

Pardeep Singh Chauhan .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:-
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

PRESENT:
Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Mr.V.S.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Lecturer in Econometrics in the Department of Economics, Kurukshetra University Kuruksehtra.

It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for said post in pursuance of Advertisement No.3 of 2005 Annexure P2 inviting applications for one post of Econometric vide advertisement dated 10.10.2005. As per the conditions of advertisement, the University has a right to short list the candidates on the basis of the criteria to be adopted by the University. In pursuance of such stipulation in the advertisement, the criteria has been framed by the University, which has been appended as Annexure P5. As per the criteria which was in existence in the year 2005, the petitioner falls in Category-1 whereas the candidate, who has been selected falls in Category-8 and, therefore, respondent No.4 could not be called for interview as the petitioner, who falls in Category-1 was available for consideration for appointment.

Therefore, the participation of respondent No.3 in the selection process in fact defeats the criteria of short listing of candidates.

In reply, it is pointed out that 37 candidates from General Category and 4 candidates from Schedule Category were called for interview after short listing whereas 24 candidates appeared for interview
including petitioner and respondent No.3. The Selection Committee recommended 4 candidates for appointment to the post. The name of petitioner was not amongst the said 4 candidates. Therefore, the petitioner, who has participated in the selection process is estopped to challenge the selection process. Since the petitioner is not a selected candidate, therefore, the petitioner has no right to impugn the selection process. It is also agreed that in fact respondent No.3 falls in Category-4 of the unamended criteria of short listing of candidates.

The short listing criteria is framed by the University to short list the candidates for further selection process out of the large number of the candidates, who apply for appointment. There was no condition in the criteria framed or in the advertisement in respect of number of candidates to be called for further selection process viz-a-viz the vacancies available.

There is no stipulation in the criteria that the candidates belonging to particular category alone would be called for interview. The University is in its discretion has broad based the selection process by inviting 41 candidates for the purposes of interview. It cannot be said that the said selection
process is vitiated as it is against the criteria framed. Still further, the petitioner has remained unsuccessful in the selection process. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the selection process having participated in the process. No other point is argued.

Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the selection process, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

( MOHINDER PAL )
JUDGE

ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATIONAL COLLG HY Vs KKR UNIVERSITY TH REGISTRAR and ORS CWP 7081 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: May 6, 2008

ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATON COLLEGES ...PETITIONER
(SELF FINANCING) OF HARYANA (REGD.)
VERSUS
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA ...RESPONDENTS
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

PRESENT:
MR. VIJAY SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
The controversy involved in this writ petition is similar to CWP No.5564 of 2008, which has been dismissed.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed in the same terms as CWP No.5564 of 2008.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

JYOTI SACHDEVA Vs KKR UNIVERSITY AND ORS CWP 32 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: May 5, 2008

JYOTI SACHDEVA ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
...RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH
AHLUWALIA.

PRESENT:
MR. A.K. KHUNGER, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. C.B. GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
The petitioner alongwith several other students appeared in the examination for Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications held in May, 2006. The examinations were conducted by the Kurukshetra University. The compilation of result and preparation of the award was outsourced from a computer agency, namely, Star International Ltd., New Delhi. An error crept in while issuing detailed marks sheet to the petitioner.

In the detailed marks sheet the marks of the petitioner were erroneously reflected as 47, although she had actually got 27 marks in the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications. On the basis of marks-sheet the petitioner got admission in M.Sc. IInd Part Computer Science, in May, 2006 and passed the examination in the year 2007. At present, the petitioner is student of Masters in Computer Application.

The respondents, however, realized that the petitioner has been wrongly issued the detailed marks sheet for the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications. It was detected that the petitioner had actually secured 27 marks, whereas as per the detailed marks sheet issued to the petitioner she had obtained 47 marks. Accordingly, the respondents issued
a notice to the petitioner for rectification of the detailed marks sheet on 24.01.2008.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was neither any
manipulation on part of the petitioner in issuance of the detailed marks sheet for the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications nor the petitioner can be held responsible in issuance of an erroneous marks-sheet
for the aforementioned course and hence as the petitioner has got admission in the Masters of Computer Application which is a higher course, therefore, she cannot be asked to reappear in the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications Course, specially, when she has passed the higher examinations, i.e. M.Sc. Part II Computer Science.

Counsel for the petitioner also submits that mistake has been detected by the respondents highly belatedly, i.e. almost 2 years of the issuance of detailed marks sheet and hence the petitioner cannot be asked to reappear and the clock cannot be turned back as the petitioner has already cleared the examinations of the next higher classes.

Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the petitioner had secured only 27 marks and had failed in Paper II of the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications, therefore, she would have to clear Paper II first before she could go on higher examinations. Learned counsel submits that as there has been mistake on part of the respondents, therefore, the respondents-University is ready and willing to hold a special examination for the petitioner to clear her Paper II examination.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the mistake has been committed by the respondents-University in issuing a wrong and erroneous marks-sheet with regard to Paper II of the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications to the petitioner.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the petitioner has secured 27 marks, whereas the minimum pass marks were 40. If a correct detailed marks sheet would have been issued to the petitioner then obviously the petitioner would not have been able to get admission in next higher class before reappearing in the paper in which she had failed. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the petitioner may appear in Paper II of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications Course which is to be held on 23.5.2008.

In case the petitioner clears the said paper the cancellation of her result would be rectified. The petitioner having also passed M.Sc. Part II Computer Science examination shall also be regularized. The respondents shall not be allowed to take any objection with regard to the petitioner having passed the subsequent examinations. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner fails in this attempt also in Paper II then she would be given an additional chance also, as the mistake was clearly on part of the respondents in issuing an erroneous marks-sheet.

The petitioner shall apply in accordance with the rules and
regulations. The order is being passed only in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case only.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE

DINESH Vs KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND ORS CWP 7238 OF 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: 02.05.2008

Dr.Dinesh .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University Kuruksehtra and others
.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:-
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

PRESENT:
Mr.Sanjeev K.Tamak, Advocate for the petitioner.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the
recommendations of the Selection Committee (Annexure P16) wherein respondents No.3 and 4 were recommended for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education.

Earlier the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the rejection of his candidature to the said post. This Court allowed the writ petition on 14.02.2008 and the University offered to consider the candidature of the petitioner as within the zone of consideration and that Selection Committee, which has considered the candidature of other candidates will consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education in the same manner as the candidature of the other candidates were considered. In terms of the said order, the candidature of the petitioner has been considered and now vide report dated 25.03.2008, respondents No.3 and 4 have been recommended for appointment to the post.

The report gives the comparative qualification and
experience of the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4. The comparison of qualification and experience does not lead to any inference that the Selection Committee acted in wholly arbitrary and unreasonable manner while making recommendations for appointment of respondents No.3 and 4. In fact, respondents No.3 and 4 have got 67.5% and 70.17% marks in M.A. as against the petitioner, who has got 61.7% marks.

Respondent No.3 has got experience of 9 years whereas respondent No.4 got experience of 3 years of teaching Postgraduate classes and 2 years of undergraduate classes whereas the petitioner has experience of 22 months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No.3 has relied upon experience of 9 years of teaching in Dayal Singh College, Karnal where there was no subject of Physical Education and, therefore, the benefit of experience has wrongly granted.

If a candidate has made a wrong declaration and benefit has been granted to him, it is for the Selection Committee to consider the contention of the experience certificate furnished by the candidates.

Once the certificate has been taken into consideration, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the contention of respondent No.3 in the writ petition.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the same is dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

( MOHINDER PAL )
JUDGE

AJIT SINGH KAHLONVsTHE STATE OF HARYANA and OTHERS Civil Writ Petition 2708 of 1988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: November 11, 2009

Ajit Singh Kahlon .....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

CORAM:-
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:
Mr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Mr.A.M.Punchhi, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, who was working as Librarian with the respondent-College, had approached this court for quashing the order of his termination, which was passed on 30.8.1986 and so also the order dated 5.2.1988, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.

Earlier one Ms.Balwinder Kaur was working as Librarian with the respondent-College having been appointed on 1.8.1981.

Respondent No.6 was appointed on probation for one year which
was further extended for a period of one year. Her services were
terminated on 30.5.1983. The salary of respondent No.6 was not
paid by the College as the post was not a sanctioned one. The
College otherwise is affiliated with Kurukshetra University and is
receiving 95% aid. Accordingly, the appointment of the post is
required to be made by Governing Body subject to the approval by the University. It is averred in the petition that appointment of
Balwinder Kaur was not approved by the University. On 6.4.1984, Director Higher Education, Haryana sanctioned the post of Librarian in the respondent-College. As per the petitioner, this post was then advertised and he thereafter applied and was appointed on probation for a period of one year on 1.9.1984. The petitioner successfully completed the period of probation on 31.8.1985. The probation was never extended. It is accordingly pleaded that as per Rule 4 of Calendar of the Kurukshetra University regarding services and conduct for Employees in the non-Govt. Recognised Colleges, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed. Rule 4 referred to above reads as under:-

An employee appointed against a regular/permanent post may be kept on one years probation after which period he will automatically be confirmed if his work and conduct are found satisfactory. It shall be obligatory on the part of a Governing Body to notify to the employee in writing before the expiry of one years probationary period, whether he had been confirmed or his period of probation had been extended and in absence of such a notice the employee would be deemed to have been confirmed.

The probationary period shall in no case be extended beyond two years from the date of appointment.

Provided further that probation period shall not be extended more than once.

Since no intimation was given to the petitioner if he was confirmed or this probation was extended, the petitioner would plead that he would be deemed to be confirmed on completion of one year
service on 31.8.1985.

Balwinder Kaur (respondent No.6) had in the meantime filed an appeal before Director Higher Education against the order of her termination. This appeal was dismissed. Thereupon she filed a
civil suit on 27.8.1983. Because of pendency of this suit, Kurukshetra University informed the Principal of the College through its letter dated 16.8.1985 that the appointment of the petitioner was approved on purely temporary basis till the case of Balwinder Kaur (respondent No.6) was decided by the court. The petitioner was thereafter informed that his appointment stood modified and that he was to work as Librarian purely on temporary basis. Copy of this letter dated 31.10.1985 is at Annexure P-3. The petitioner ofcourse would contest this action of the respondents by pleading that he by then would be deemed to have been confirmed on this post .

The civil suit filed by Balwinder Kaur was dismissed on 5.11.1985.

Thereafter the College wrote a letter to the University for granting approval of the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis. The Governing Body of the College also withdrew the earlier letter dated 31.10.1985 (Annexure P-3) issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, would reiterate that all this would lead to deemed
confirmation of the petitioner on the post.

Balwinder Kaur then appealed against the order dismissing her civil suit. She statedly joined as Librarian in Kanya Mahavidalaya. During the pendency of the appeal, the case was compromised between the College and said Balwinder Kaur. She accordingly withdrew this appeal. As per this compromise the college management had agreed to reinstate Balwinder Kaur on the post of Librarian where she had been working till 30.5.1983. The petitioner, however, would question this move on the part of the College to compromise the issue with Balwinder Kaur. The petitioner would first say that on completion of one year, he stood confirmed in terms of the Rule and even if his appointment was to legally commence from 16.8.1985, he would still stand confirmed w.e.f.15.8.1986, specially so when no letter of confirmation or extending the period of probation was ever issued by the Governing Body. Here the petitioner is ignoring a letter dated 19.8.1985 (Annexure R-6/10) extending the probation. Still, the petitioner would contend that his services could not have been terminated in view of the provisions of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979. The petitioner would also refer to Section 8 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of a civil court to submit that even the suit filed by Balwinder Kaur was not maintainable. The petitioner would also refer to the rules framed
under the Act, which would regulate the procedure for imposing
major penalties or dismissal and removal and accordingly would
question his dismissal being in violation of these rules and would say that it was done simply to accommodate Balwinder Kaur.

As per the petitioner, Balwinder Kaur had won over the Principal and since there was only one sanctioned post in the College, in order to accommodate Balwinder Kaur, the Principal went out of his way to dismiss the petitioner. When the petitioner realized this, he filed a civil suit and obtained a stay of his termination from the court of Sub Judge on 6.9.1986. In order to circumvent the stay
order, the Principal of the College managed antedated letter from the President of the Governing Body for reinstating Balwinder Kaur on the basis of a compromise. Even a letter was also obtained for reinstating Balwinder Kaur pending withdrawal of the cases filed by her against the College. Thus, Balwinder Kaur was even reinstated before the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner would, thus, urge that these letters had been written by antedating to circumvent the letter dated 3.9.1986 written by the Principal. The letter terminating the services of the petitioner dated 30.8.1986 even was not supplied to the petitioner which he demanded on learning about it from a telegram received by him on 15.9.1986. Petitioner then filed an appeal against the order of his termination, which was dismissed on 5.2.1988. The petitioner was not granted relief mainly because of the compromise reached between the College and Balwinder Kaur, which, as per the appellate authority could not be ignored to grant relief to the petitioner.

The petitioner thereafter challenged the order passed by the Director dismissing his appeal on various grounds. As per the
petitioner, he stood confirmed against the sanctioned post and so his services could have been terminated by following of procedure as given in Section 7 of the Act and Rule 4. The petitioner would also urge that no enquiry was held and no charge was given to him while terminating his services. He would also question the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain this suit and would also challenge the sanctity of the compromise reached between the parties before the court.

The respondent-College as well as private respondent No.6 would seriously join issues with the petitioner not only in facts but also in law. It is stated that respondent No.6 was selected by a duly constituted selection committee and her appointment was made
by the Governing Body whereby she was placed on probation for one year on December 29, 1981. Respondent No.6 would question the action of General Secretary of the Governing Body to extend her probation vide order dated 31.7.1982. Accordingly, she would plead that her services could not be terminated on 27.5.1983 she being a confirmed employee. She accordingly filed a civil suit as already pointed out which was dismissed. She had then moved an application for additional evidence to establish that General Secretary had no authority to extend her period of probation and this could only be done by the Governing Body.

This plea had not been taken by respondent No.6 earlier in the suit. In this background, the Governing Body realised that it would be difficult to defend the order of termination. The President of the Governing Body was, thus, authorised to take final decision in the matter. The respondent college then compromised with respondent No.6, which was ultimately produced before the Appellate Court, i.e., Addl.District Judge, Karnal. The College, thus, agreed to reinstate respondent No.6 with the condition that she will not claim any arrears of salary.

The appeal was accordingly got dismissed as withdrawn by respondent No.6.

Respondent No.6 would point out that the College had made a futile attempt to frustrate her claim by appointing the petitioner by giving him a back door appointment. To substantiate this, respondent No.6 would urge that while appointing the petitioner,
neither the post was advertised nor any selection committee
constituted to make selection. In fact, the advertisement for the post of Librarian appeared in the Newspapers on 16.9.1984 whereas interview letters were issued on 5.12.1984. The petitioner had even not applied for the post of Librarian nor was he called for interview, but had been appointed w.e.f. 1.9.1984, whereas the selection process was going on even during December, 1984. In this regard, the College has also come forward to support the stand of respondent No.6. In the written statement, it is pointed out that the petitioner was not legally appointed and his appointment was made by Vice-President of the College, which never came up for consideration before the Governing Body. The appointment letter (Annexure P-1) would also support this stand. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner has remained silent about the date when the advertisement for the post was issued and would simply aver that the post was advertised without giving date and that he was selected and appointed on 1.9.1984. The allegation that this appointment was
back door, thus, is not without substance.

The appointment of the petitioner also seems to have been approved by the University purely on temporary basis and was
subject to the outcome of the case filed by respondent No.6. The
petitioner, thus, was aware of the pending civil suit and also about
the compromise that was reached between the College and respondent No.6. He took no action to become party to this suit and even has not challenged the said order through this writ petition or otherwise. The respondent would further point out that the petitioner, though a back door entry, his probation was extended on 19.8.1985 and within this extended period, the services were terminated on 30.8.1986. The copy of this order extending the period of probation is annexed with the reply as Annexure R-6/10. The petitioner has not made any reference to this communication in his writ petition but has relied upon communications Annexures P-5 and P-6, which would run contrary to the position as is reflected in Annexure R-6/10.

The facts in this case, thus, would reveal that when the services of the petitioner were dispensed with, he filed a civil suit challenging his termination and so also an appeal before Director
Public Instructions, Colleges. He obtained an injunction order against his termination. On account of this stay order, respondent No.6 could not rejoin the services in the College. Ultimately, the petitioner withdrew his civil suit on 15.9.1987 as he had filed appeal before the Director Public Instructions. The injunction granted in favour of the petitioner, thus, stood vacated.

Respondent No.6 then immediately joined the College on 14.9.1987 and since then is working in the said College and, thus, had put in more than 22 years in service.

The whole case set up by the petitioner, thus, is that he being a confirmed employee could not have been terminated without
following the procedure prescribed in the Act and the Rules.

There is otherwise not much dispute in facts. Respondent No.6 was earlier working on this post and her services were terminated on 30.5.1983.

The appointment of respondent No.6 had been approved by the
University. The facts as disclosed by the College would also show
that the petitioner originally was appointed on this post in July, 1973 and worked till August, 1978 when he voluntarily resigned from the job. The reply by the College would also show that appointment of respondent No.6 was approved and on account of the objection raised by the audit cell of the Director, the post was regularized w.e.f.6.8.1984 instead of 1.8.1981 which was the date of appointment of respondent No.6. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner had tried to withhold information and has not disclosed full details in the writ petition filed by him. In fact, the probation period of the petitioner had been extended on 19.8.1985 and letter to this effect was sent to him under postal cover when he refused to receive the same otherwise. In this background, it cannot be taken that the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed on this post. In fact, the very appointment of the petitioner apparently is not legal. The counsel for the petitioner could not show any advertisement in response to which he had applied for this post. He also could not show anything if he was selected by the selection committee.

Annexure P-1 is an appointment letter issued to him by Vice-Principal of the College. If indeed this was the appointment validly made, then there was no reason for the managing committee to advertise this post on 16.9.1984, which appeared in the Newspaper Tribune (Annexure R-6/8). The interview letters were issued on 5.12.1984.

The petitioner cannot show any application through which he had
applied for the post or that he had appeared for the interview. His
appointment which was done on 1.9.1984, thus, apparently was
without any selection process and was made by the Vice-President alone, who would not have any authority to give any valid appointment to the petitioner.

Here only the difference between the appointment either being on a temporary or a regular basis and it being on probation has
also to be understood. Even if the appointment of the petitioner was made regular, yet he would continue to be on probation in view of communication Annexure R-6/10. The petitioner would have number of other hurdles to cross to get relief in this case. He has not challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 in the present writ petition. He has also not taken any action to challenge the compromise reached between the College and respondent No.6.

Perhaps it may not be open for him to impugn this decree of civil
court through the present writ petition. In the absence of such a
challenge, it may not be open for the petitioner to seek setting aside of the appointment of respondent No.6. The petitioner even has not placed on record his termination order setting aside of which he has prayed in the writ petition.

In view of this and the fact that respondent No.6 now has continued to work for over two and half decades, it would not be fair to interfere in her appointment. Her appointment is even on account of a decree passed by the court. The petitioner has also not made any case on law or otherwise, which would call for interference.

The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and is, thus, dismissed.

( RANJIT SINGH )
JUDGE

SATISH KUMARVsSTATE OF HARYANA Criminal Revision 2331 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision : 21.10.2009.

Satish Kumar .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent

CORAM :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

Present:
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG Haryana, for the respondent-State.

NAWAB SINGH J.
This revision is directed against the judgment dated November 13th, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 13th, 1998 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra was upheld and the petitioner was convicted under Section 457 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month.

2. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:-

On the night intervening February 3rd/4th, 1995 J.K. Jain was sleeping in his house No. C-I/18 situated on the campus of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. Petitioner entered the house.

Daughter of R.P. Sharma-complainant, a neighbour of J.K. Jain
heard a thud indicating some person had trespassed into the house of J.K. Jain. Neighbours woke up and apprehended the petitioner.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but only prays for releasing the petitioner on probation. It has been submitted in support thereof that the prosecution have failed to prove the presence of the petitioner in the house for a purpose other than that of committing of any other offence punishable with imprisonment as described in Section 457 IPC. Even if the prosecution story is accepted, that itself does not constitute the
ingredient of Section 457 IPC. The only offence made out against the petitioner was that he committed simple lurking house trespass, an act punishable under Section 453 IPC. The petitioner is a first offender, is serving in the same University in which J.K.

Jain is serving, has faced the agony of protracted trial for a long period of 14 years and is the only bread earner of the family.

3. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on probation.

4. Thus, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for the said period for keeping peace and be of good behaviour to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra.

5. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

(NAWAB SINGH)
JUDGE

SUMER CHANDVsKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: October 20, 2009.

Sumer Chand
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice and
Honble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover.

Present:
Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral)
After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition reserving liberty for the petitioner to seek appropriate redress for payment of the out-standing wages due to him.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for.

(T.S.Thakur)
Chief Justice

(Mahesh Grover)
Judge

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRAVsM-S SHIV CONSTRUCTION AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA No.926 of 2009

Date of Order: 12.10.2009

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra ...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Shiv Construction and others ....Respondents

CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:
Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR,J
This appeal filed under clause X of the letters patent is directed
against judgment dated 30.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.17322 of 2008. The challenge in the aforesaid petition is to order dated 24.10.2007 whereby arbitration proceedings pending before Arbitrator-respondent No.2 were abruptly closed. Learned Single Judge after recording the clauses of arbitration agreement has opined that the order closing the proceedings cannot be sustained and the same has been set aside with a direction to the University to nominate a new Arbitrator, as per the clauses of the agreement. It was further directed that the Arbitrator shall proceed further with the arbitration proceedings from the stage the earlier Arbitrator had left with an advance notice to the petitioners.

The aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge has been complied with as per order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the Kurukshetra University and now the Successor of the earlier Arbitrator has been appointed as an Arbitrator. As the order has been complied with, no argument has been addressed with regard to the legality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Appeal fails and the same is dismissed as having been rendered
infructuous.

( M.M. KUMAR )
JUDGE

( JASWANT SINGH )
JUDGE

Govt colleges to hike fee from coming academic session

Chandigarh-Panchkula: The government colleges of the city are likely to hike the course fee from the coming academic session.

The new fee structure will be formed jointly by the Education Department and Kurukshetra University.

The university is likely to increase the parking and tuition fee also.

A five-member committee is being formed for setting the new fee structure. The committee is going to handover its recommendations to the concerned authority.

A meeting in this regard was held between the university officials and the Education Department in January.

The students of government colleges are being charged Rs 1000 per semester as tuition fee.

Chief Accounts officer JS Gautam said, the new fee structure has not yet been finalised.

Till date, the students are being charged Rs 60 as monthly fee.

The fee schedule was formed in 1994.

BRAHAM SHAKTI Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15294 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Braham Shakti
.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Kurukshetra University and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH.
PRESENT:
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on ome instructions issued by the University to say that A.M.I.E.T.E. ualification done by the petitioner even after 10+2, has now been held to be eligible in view of the instruction dated 30.7.2010. If that is so, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the University on the basis of the said instructions and the University would pass an appropriate order in this regard. The stand of the University before this Court is that the petitioner is not eligible as having done this qualification after 10+2. Only those students, who qualified three years Degree Course, have been considered eligible.

As already observed, the petitioner may approach the University on the basis of instructions referred to by him and the University will pass a fresh order. If still aggrieved, the petitioner may take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE

BALWINDER KUMAR Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS Civil Writ Petition No. 14959 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.M. No. 14816 of 2010 in/and

Date of decision: 13.10.2010
Balwinder Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and others ...Respondents
Present: Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

RANJIT SINGH J.
C.M. No. 14816 of 2010
Application allowed.
Reply taken on record.

There is dispute whether the petitioner had appeared for practical examination or he was not permitted to appear on the ground that sum of Rs. 30,000/- was demanded by the College. The College has filed reply denying this fact as asserted in the writ petition. The counsel for the University, however, points out that this is fight between the college and the student and the University never passed any order debarring the petitioner from appearing in the practical examination. It will not be appropriate to go into the disputed question of fact as raised in the petition. However, to protect the interest of the petitioner, directions are issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in supplementary examination likely to be held in near future. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE

SUGANDHA Versus THE KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS Civil Writ Petition No.18309 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sugandha Versus The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others
Present:
Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The amount of fees, refund of which is sought, being small, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may have her any other alternativeremedy. Dismissed.
(RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE

MRSVIJAY LATA Versus SHSARVADANAND ARYA AND OTHERS Crl. Misc.No.M-46849 of 2007 (O and M) In CWP No.1986 of 1993



RAGHAV GOMBER Versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA AND ANOTHERC Civil Writ Petition No. 13685 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: September 21, 2010

Raghav Gomber .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and another ....Respondents
PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
Counsel for the petitioner prays that he would not press the writ petition as the petitioner has already been granted admission at some institution at New Delhi. Dismissed as not pressed.
(RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE

Prez inaugurates audio-visual gallery on Mahabharata, Gita

Kurukshetra: President Pratibha Patil today inaugurated a 4.5-acre audio-visual gallery on Mahabharata and Gita at Sri Krishna Museum here. She described the museum as a "unique place", where valuable information concerning various incidents of the battle of the Mahabharta has been provided in addition to the display of ancient objects concerning the epic battle.

The multimedia Mahabharata and Gita gallery has been set up over an area of 4.5 acres at a cost of Rs 4.65 crore.
"The multimedia gallery would give the message of 'Karma' (action) and peace to the youth, and show them a path which would inspire them to work for the development of the country," the President said while speaking on the occasion.
The President appreciated that the museum has enough material to cater all sections of the society, as for children, it has 'Chakravyuha' of Abhimanyu and questions as asked by 'Yaksha'.
An attempt has also been made to display the descendants of 'Kauravas' and 'Pandavas'. She also watched an 11-minute film on Lord Krishna.

Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda said this museum would pave the way to portray the state on the international map as a major centre of tourists interest. Hooda said that places associated with Mahabharata would be further developed to attract tourists.

The President was accompanied by Haryana Governor Jagannath Pahadia, MP Naveen Jindal, senior officers of state government and executive director of the Museum, Varsha Bedi.

Patil is in Punjab and will be the chief guest at a convocation of Kurukshetra University to be held today.

Haryana's youth lead the way to Everest

Kathmandu-Haryana: After proving their mettle in the sporting arena, including bagging the lion's share of medals at the New Delhi Commonwealth Games, men and women from Haryana, including a young couple, are now seeking to conquer the world's highest peak.Nine of the 17 Indians individually attempting to scale the 8,848-metre summit hail from the state.
Vikash Kaushik, a 24-year-old computer science student from Kurukshetra University, is among the nine Haryanvis trying their luck, skill and courage on the mountain that has already claimed three lives this season.
"We were inspired by Mamata Sodha," says Vikash.
Mamata Sodha, a 28-year-old teacher, summited the peak last year and returned home in glory, asking people to "do something different".

So Kaushik is now biding his opportunity on the freezing slope, hoping to do her bidding. And he is not alone. Accompanying him on the challenge is his wife Sushma, a 27-year-old constable with the Haryana Police serving in Panipat."We hope to do something different. We hope to become the youngest couple to summit Mt. Everest together," Kaushik said.The first married couple to scale Mt. Everest together were Slovenians Andrej and Mariga Stremfelj, who summited in 1990. Eight years later, the peak took the lives of a climbing couple, American Francys Arsentiev and her husband Serguei.Though Nepali girl Moni Mulepati and her husband Pem Dorje Sherpa were younger than the Kaushiks when they summited Mt. Everest in 2005, the Haryana couple can still claim the record technically since Mulepati and Sherpa were not married when they went up.

The pair exchanged vows only on the summit and then had a formal wedding ceremony after they came down.
The Vikash-Sushma pair also projects a refreshingly different image of Haryana and, indeed, India - she is the older partner and is the bread-earner while he is still a student. The 11-member second Eco Everest Expedition, of which the Kaushiks are members, has three more aspirants from Haryana, including a woman, 26-year-old Sunita Singh Chokan.
Also attempting the climb is a third woman from Haryana - Richa Sheokand, 25, who is part of the international expedition that saw Tine Mena, the first woman from India's northeast, summit this week.

The Haryana boom is also being attributed to the generous patronage that Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda's government has shown to athletes."Mamata was promoted to the rank of deputy police superintendent after she summited Mt. Everest," says Captain Sanjiv Vajpai, father of Arjun Vajpai, the New Delhi schoolboy who created history last year when he summited Mt. Everest at the age of 16, thereby becoming the youngest Indian to achieve the feat.
"Unlike the New Delhi government which took no cognizance of Arjun's ascent, Hooda offered him further support with future expeditions - if he would care to relocate to Haryana," Vajpai said.

Haryanas youth lead the way to Mt Everest

KATHMANDU, May 15 : After proving their mettle in the sporting arena, including bagging the lions share of medals at the New Delhi Commonwealth Games, men and women from Haryana, including a young couple, are now seeking to conquer the worlds highest peak. Nine of the 17 Indians individually attempting to scale the 8,848-metre summit hail from the State.We were inspired by Mamata Sodha, says Vikash Kaushik, a 24-year-old computer science student from Kurukshetra University who is among the nine Haryanvis trying their luck, skill and courage on the mountain that has already claimed three lives this season.

Mamata Sodha, a 28-year-old teacher, summited the peak last year and returned home in glory, asking people to do something different.

So Kaushik is now biding his opportunity on the freezing slope, hoping to do her bidding. And he is not alone. Accompanying him on the challenge is his wife Sushma, a 27-year-old constable with the Haryana Police serving in Panipat.

We hope to do something different, Kaushik told IANS. We hope to become the youngest couple to summit Mt Everest together.

The first married couple to scale Mt Everest together were Slovenians Andrej and Mariga Stremfelj, who summited in 1990. Eight years later, the peak took the lives of a climbing couple, American Francys Arsentiev and her husband Serguei.

Though Nepali girl Moni Mulepati and her husband Pem Dorje Sherpa were younger than the Kaushiks when they summited Mt Everest in 2005, the Haryana couple can still claim the record technically since Mulepati and Sherpa were not married when they went up.

The pair exchanged vows only on the summit and then had a formal wedding ceremony after they came down.

The Vikash-Sushma pair also projects a refreshingly different image of Haryana and, indeed, India – she is the older partner and is the bread-earner while he is still a student. The 11-member second Eco Everest Expedition, of which the Kaushiks are members, has three more aspirants from Haryana,including a woman, 26-year-old Sunita Singh Chokan.

Also attempting the climb is a third woman from Haryana - Richa Sheokand, 25, who is part of the international expedition that saw Tine Mena, the first woman from Indias northeast, summit this week.

The Haryana boom is also being attributed to the generous patronage that Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hoodas government has shown to athletes.

Mamata was promoted to the rank of deputy police superintendent after she summited Mt Everest, says Captain Sanjiv Vajpai, father of Arjun Vajpai, the New Delhi schoolboy who created history last year when he summited Mt. Everest at the age of 16, thereby becoming the youngest Indian to achieve the feat.

Honorary degrees for Ramgoolam, Hooda

Mauritius Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam was conferred an honorary degree of Doctor of Law on Wednesday at the convocation ceremony of Kurukshetra University. Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda was also conferred Doctor of Law degree in the presence of President Pratibha Patil on Wednesday.
The degrees were conferred by chancellor of the university Jagannath Pahadia, who is also the governor of Haryana. The degree has been conferred upon Dr Ramgoolam in recognition of his many achievements.

***
Airbus deal: CBI TURNS down ministry request
AGE CORRESPONDENT
NEW DELHI, FEB. 8

The CBI has reportedly turned down a request by the civil aviation ministry for reconsidering action against six officials for alleged irregularities in the over `8,000-crore Airbus deal for supplying 43 aircraft to erstwhile Indian Airlines in 2005.
The agency had approached the ministry in November 20, 2012, seeking sanction to prosecute six of its officials for the alleged irregularities but the ministry had written back to the probe agency asking it to reconsider, sources said.
However, recently the CBI wrote back to the aviation ministry saying that it stuck to its findings.

***
Centre mulls faculty development centres
AGE CORRESPONDENT
NEW DELHI, FEB. 8

The government has proposed to establish 20 Faculty Development Centres to improve training of university teachers across the country.
The proposed development centres will be mandated to offer discipline wise, specific refresher programmes and ICT-linked teaching-learning-research training programmes which will continuously engage teachers in updating them.
The proposal states that the identification of universities for establishing such centres should be on the basis of the infrastructure developed, past record and the strength of universities in various disciplines.

***
Congress told to withdraw naveen cartoon
Bhubaneswar, Feb. 8: Orissas State Election Commission (SEC) on Wednesday directed the Opposition Congress to withdraw certain objectionable matters from its manifesto released in view of the three-tire panchayat polls, official sources said.
The SECs order in this regard came in response to the ruling BJDs complaint against the Congresss manifesto which projected the chief minister Naveen Patnaik and the party president as a ten-headed demon.
The Congress manifesto also made charges against 14 ministers and dubbed them as tainted. The manifesto narrated the BJD government in poor light.
After hearing arguments of both the side on Tuesday, SEC A.K. Tripathy asked removal of the objectionable materials from the manifesto immediately or re-print the same.
While the BJD welcomed the SECs order, the Congress termed it as partisan. — PTI

Shattered student ends life on KU campus

Shattered by death of her father, a 20-year-old girl student allegedly committed suicide by consuming poison on Kurukshetra University campus on Wednesday afternoon.

Identified as Ritu, student of BA 2nd year at University College, was found unconscious at rose garden near the vice-chancellors residence by the security staff and students. She was rushed to the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Civil Hospital where she died during treatment.

A resident of Baan village near Ladwa in Kurukshetra, Ritu was said to be emotionally upset after her father died about two months back.Sources said that the girl mixed certain poisonous substance in juice and consumed it in the afternoon.
University registrar Dr Surinder Deswal rushed to the hospital along with other university officials and teachers.
Police said that no suicide note was found and investigations were on rule out foul play.

Summary: Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Haryana website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.