IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Rama Verma ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ravi Sharma, Standing Counsel, and Mr. Raywant Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent-UGC.

Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate, (Legal Aid Counsel)

for respondent No.5, along with respondent No.5.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. A communication/letter dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-17), issued by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak-respondent No.4, vide which, a direction has been passed upon the petitioner to submit her original documents of B.A. 2^nd and 3^rd year, to enable the University to take further action, has propelled her to beseech indulgence of this Court, by filing instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. In brief, the undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner had enrolled for Bachelor of Arts, in the academic session

2007-08, which was to be concluded in the year 2010-11. Accordingly, she successfully completed the course, and was even awarded the degree by the University concerned. However, while studying in B.A. 2^nd year, she had simultaneously enrolled herself for a Diploma in Education from Madhya Pradesh Board, in the academic session 2008-09, which too, was successfully completed by her. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by one Ajay-respondent No.5, who is none other than the estranged husband of the petitioner, against whom she has already filed a divorce petition, with the respondent-University, for taking a legal action against her, for preparing/procuring bogus documents. Whereafter, the matter was taken cognizance of, by the University concerned, and found that the petitioner pursued both the courses, BA 2^nd year and D.Ed. 1^st year (regular courses), simultaneously. Accordingly, the impugned communication/letter has been issued to the petitioner. Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. Opening his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that it is astonishing, that after a lapse of over 12 years of completion of degree by the petitioner, the impugned communication/letter has been issued by the respondent-University. He submits that the University, at best, could have raised an objection with respect to the shortage of lectures, and that too, at the relevant time. He further submits that a student can pursue two programmes simultaneously through distance or combination of distance and regular modes from the same or different University/Institution in various combinations. To lend credence to this submission, he refers to clause 13 of the General Rules for Examinations, as framed by the respondent-University, (Annexure P-3), which is extracted hereinafter:-

“13. A student can pursue two programmes simultaneously through distance or combination of distance and regular modes from the same or different University (ies)/Institution(s) in various combinations, viz.

(a) One Degree and one Diploma/Post Graduate Diploma/Advanced PG Diploma Certificate (b) One Post Graduate Diploma and one Diploma/Certificate (c) One Diploma and one Certificate (d) Two Post Graduate Diplomas (e) Two Diplomas (f) Two Certificates Two Degree Programmes cannot be allowed to be pursed simultaneously. However, the bar shall not apply to a candidate appearing in examination of the University for passing re-appear papers or for improvement of division/result or for additional subject. The bar shall also not apply to a candidate who has completed course of duration and the examination of that course is not held in time due to unavoidable reason(s).

4. Moreover, it has never been the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the examinations in question. In such circumstances, the respondent-University ought to have ref