Balancing fundamental rights with the easing of Covid-19 situation and compliance with Covid-19 guidelines in the context of conducting offline examinations.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.(Oral) - This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. Instant petition is at the hands of 159 petitioners who are stated to be pursuing the undergraduate B-Tech Course in different streams/branches with the Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, Patiala.

3. Challenge in the petition is to a notice dated 25.12.2020 (circulated through email) whereby the respondent-Thapar Institute has taken a decision to call the students to write the End Semester Terminal Examination (EST) through offline mode and such examination to commence w.e.f. 25.01.2021.Perusal of the impugned notice would show that where a student is unable to appear in the EST examination then he/she would be awarded a "U" Grade (Unattempt Grade) for the course in question. Such 'U' Grade will not be considered as a backlog and would not be reflected in the grade card due to Covid-19 Pandemic situation. Option has been given to the student to appear in his/her EST as a day scholar or as a hosteller. Students choosing to appear in the EST as hostellers would be under strict quarantine period for at least one week. The notice further recites that keeping in view the expected strength of students appearing in the EST as hostellers and the social distancing norms laid down by the Government, the hostel facility would be limited and the allocation thereof would be upon on the arrival of the student on a first come first served basis. To accommodate students from far of cities, students residing within 150 kms. radius of Thapar Institute Campus have been advised to appear in the EST as day scholars.

4. It would be apposite to take note that a subsequent email was also circulated on 01.01.2021 by the respondent-Thapar Institute and as per which considering the long distance travel which the students may have to cover and the apprehension prevailing on account of the current Covid-19 pandemic situation certain dedicated centres of examination across the country numbering 35 were also detailed out.

5. The tone and tenor of the challenge to the notice at Annexure P-l set up in the writ petition is that the decision to conduct offline examination is in fragrant violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners as it fails to take into consideration the great risk to which the examinees would be exposed to on account of the Corona Virus outbreak. Right at the commencement of the hearing of the instant petition, both the counsels representing the petitioners were confronted by this Court with regard to the decision taken by the Punjab Government to re-open all Government Aided and non aided colleges including all Government and private universities w.e.f. 21.01.2021. It was put to the counsel that a decision had been taken by the State Government that it would be in the interest of the students that educational institutions should conduct classes through both offline and online medium and conduct the semester/annual examination through offline medium only. Further Punjab State had taken a decision that hostels should be opened in the Universities as also Colleges but subject to strict compliance of the Covid-19 instructions/protocol. That apart counsels were also confronted with the factual premise that in the very recent past, Punjab Engineering College as well as the I.K. Gujral Technical University, Jalandhar have conducted examinations through the offline mode

6. Clearly the Covid-19 situation has eased to a certain extent. Universities/colleges have taken decisions towards partial opening up as also to conduct examinations through offline medium. Due compliance of the Covid-19 guidelines issued by the Government of India/State Government and local administrative authorities of course have to be observed.

7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners would make a statement they would not be pressing their challenge to the notice dated 25.