The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the conditions and eligibility criteria for university scholarships, the prospectus/handbook having the force of law, and the principle of estoppel in claiming the benefit of concession.

JUDGMENT :

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

Consideration in the present letters patent appeal filed by the Punjab University is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.02.2021 passed in CWP No. 20275 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein namely Ishita Uppal which has been allowed by imposing Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to be paid by the University and University Institute of Legal Studies (hereinafter referred to as 'UILS') in equal shares. Liberty has been given to recover the same from the erring officials. Resultantly, directions were issued to restore and release the entire benefit of freeship/EWS scholarship to the writ petitioner while quashing communications dated 26.06.2019, 10.07.2019, 19.07.2019 (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-8, respectively).

2. The following questions were culled out for adjudication on merits of the controversy by the learned Single Judge:-

“A) Whether in view of Clause (vi) of guideline No.9 (P-9), the action of the respondents to withdraw the benefit of freeship/EWS scholarship while considering the case of the petitioner as a compartment/re-appear candidate for 6 th Semester, is legally sustainable?

B) Whether the action of the respondents while not treating the petitioner on the rolls of the Department and consequently terminating her internship programme is based on legal malice and liable to set aside?

C) Whether the action of the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for freeship/EWS scholarship is violative of principles of natural justice?

D) Whether the action of the respondents has caused great prejudice to the petitioner resulting into miscarriage of justice?”

Finding of the Learned Single Judge:

3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the absence of the respondent in the French-III paper of the 6th semester on 14.05.2018 was on account of her medical condition as such and the relevant medical certificate had been duly handed over to the clerk of the institute. It was accordingly held that non-forwarding of the medical certificate of the concerned quarter had made the respondent run around from pillar to post for complete one year. It was noticed that there was an admission as such by the University that the father had also submitted an application on 12.06.2018 that his daughter could not take the examination on account of health problems and the same had also been forwarded to the Controller of Education on 13.06.2018 and that the dealing official of the Examination Branch had telephonically informed her on 25.06.2018 that her case had been cleared by the Doctor of the Health Centre regarding re-conducting of the said paper on medical grounds. It was held that there was specific admission that no individual intimation had been sent to the candidates appearing in the examinations in pursuance of the date sheet dated 06.07.2018 and that for a period of one year, no intimation was sent to the petitioner for the request of the French-III paper, whether it has been accepted or rejected by the Vice Chancellor of the Institute. Finding was recorded that it is only after a period of one year the communication had been sent to the petitioner that she had remained absent for the said paper and, therefore, her case was to be treated as compartment/reappear while taking shelter under Clause (vi) of Guideline 9. Reliance was accordingly placed upon Clause 7.1 of Chapter VIII Volume II, Punjab University Calendar, 2007 that there was a provision for a candidate to complete the annual examination on account of serious illness or accident or on account of death of near relative on one of the days in the same year by the Vice Chancellor provided he was satisfied by the evidence produced and that the concession applied for was justified. It was accordingly held that she had been treated as a compartment/reappear candidate but no order had been passed by the Vice Chancellor and supplied to her till date. Therefore, the University was depriving her for claiming the benefit