1. The petitioner Pardeep Kumar who had passed the All India Secondary School Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education., New Delhi, in the year 1980, was admitted by Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharma College, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) in the Pre-University class. His admission form was also received by the University for the examination to be held in 1980-81. His roll-number was despatched to the college by the University, but the same was withheld from the petitioner. This led the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Principal of the Sanatan Dharma College, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) and the Punjab University (respondent No. 1) to confirm the admission of the petitioner and allot to him registration number, release his roll number and permit him to take the examination.
2. The stand taken by the Principal in his return was twofold (1) that the petitioner had not secured requisite marks in the monthly test and the test held in December and such students who did not secure the requisite marks in such tests were not permitted to appear in the annual university examination. The principal of a private affiliated college is given the discretion to hold a special test for such students and students who secure 30% or above in this special test, their provisional admission to the examination is confirmed. Since the result of the special test held from 24-3-1981 to 31-3-1981 was not declared prior to the filing of the writ petition, his roll number remained withheld from him. The petitioner having secured 30% marks in the special test, his roll number was to be released to him, even if he had not filed the present petition; and (2) that the admission of the petitioner was provisional, as he had not passed in English in the Secondary School Examination held by the Central Board and a condition stood incorporated to his knowledge in the prospectus that such students who had not passed in English subject offered in the given examination had to pass in that subject before April, 1981. Since the petitioner had not complied with the aforesaid condition, so by virtue of the University Regulation 2.1 contained in the Punjab University Calendar, 1979 (Vol. II), Chap. 9 at page 41, he was not entitled to appear in the Pre-University Examination in question.
3. Punjab University, respondent No. 1, in its reply took up the stand that under Regulation 2.1 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1979 (Vol. II), before a candidate becomes eligible for admission to the Pre-University examination, he must pass in the subject of English. As the petitioner failed in the subject of English, he was not eligible for admission to the Pre-University class. Provisional admission to Pre-University class was by way of concession. It was made clear in the 'introductions to the Principals' and the prospectus issued by the colleges on that basis, that the candidates who had failed in the subject of English were provisionally admitted subject to their qualifying in the deficient subject of English by April, 1981.
4. The respondent University additionally asserted that it did not allot any registration number to the petitioner, because he had not qualified and passed in the deficient subject of English; that he could appear in the Pre-University examination provisionally subject to his qualifying in the deficit subject of English by April 1981; and that if he did not appear and pass in the subject of English either in the supplementary examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education in 1980 or in April 1981, his result of the Pre-University examination would be quashed.
5. Mr. R. K. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the University, while supporting the stand of the University, made a reference to the instructions, Annexures R-1 and R-2 filed along with the return of the University, issued by the University to the Principals of the affiliated colleges and drew pointed attention to para 4 of Annexure R-2, which is in the following terms:
(a) The Principals of all the affiliated colleges.
(b) The Principals of all the Higher Secondary Schools located in Chandigarh Registered
Subject : Admission criteria in respect of the students who appeared/passed the 10th class examination under 10 plus 2 pattern of education.
I am to invite your attention to the note given at page 9 of the circular letter No. 7096-7245/ R & S dated 11-7-1980 stating therein that 'Guidelines relating to admission criteria in case of candidates who have passed the 10th class examination under 10+2 pattern of education will follows.'
In this connection, I am to inform you that the candidates falling in the above category may be allowed to join the Pre-University class in the following manner.
(4) A candidate who has been declared pass in the abovesaid examination while failing in English may be allowed to join Pre-University class provisionally subject to his qualifying in the deficient subject of English by April 1981 from Board of School education Punjab/Haryana/Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. If he fails to qualify the deficient subject of English by April, 1981, his admission to Pre-University class and also the result thereof shall be cancelled. Such a candidate is required to have obtained 40% marks in the aggregate at the time of admission, if he offers Science Group in Pre-University class.
Assistant Registrar (R & S)
6-7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the instruction issued by the University to the Principals of the colleges and the conditions imposed in the prospectus on the basis of those instructions run counter to Regulation 2.1 ibid. The relevant portion of Regulation 2.1 is in the following terms :
'2.1. The Pre-University examination shall be open to a person who satisfies the requirements in (A) and (B). viz.--
(A) has passed not less than one academic year previously--
(i) the Matriculation examination with English as one of the subjects of the Punjab University before 1970, or of the Board of School Education Examination, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh or of Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi (Students of Union Territory of Chandigarh only);
(ii) Higher Secondary Part 1 examination with English as one of the subjects of the Punjab University after 1964 and before 1970 or of the Board of School Education Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh or of Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi (for students of Union Territory of Chandigarh only);
Mr. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent University, has however, urged that according to the understanding of the University authorities of Regn. 2.1, a student who had not only offered the subject of English but had a student who had also passed therein while passing in the given examination of Board of School Education from Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh or of the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi or of the Matriculation Examination of the Punjab University before, 1970, was entitled to appear in the Pre-University Examination held by the Punjab University. The University rather gave a concession to student who had passed such an examination without actually passing in the English subject by granting them provisional admission and permitting them to appear in the Pre-University Examination if by the dates indicate in the instruction they had removed the deficiency in English subject.
8. A bare perusal of Regulation 2.1 ibid would show that the interpretation put there-on by the University authorities that a student has to pass not only the given examination but also to pass the English subject in the examination, in our opinion, is not correct. The regulation, in our view, envisages fulfilment of only two conditions by a student who wishes to appear in the Pre-University examination to be held by the Punjab University--(i) that he should have passed the given examination, and (ii) that he should have offered English as one of the subjects in that examination. If the intention had been that the concerned students had not only to pass the given examination but had also to pass in the subject of English therein, then the framers of the regulation would have used in Regulation 2.1 the expression 'with English as one of the compulsory subjects' and would not have rest content with the expression 'English as one of the subjects'.
9. In view of the interpretation that we have put on Regulation 2.1, the University authorities could not impose the condition of the kind they have imposed on the students who though had passed the given examination of the concerned institutions with. English as one of the subjects but had not passed in the subject of English they had offered in that examination.
10. For the reasons aforementioned, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondent University to declare the result of the petitioner who had already taken the examination by virtue of our interim order, within three days from today. The petitioner shall have his costs from the University.
G.C. Mital., J.
11. I agree.
12. Petition allowed.