IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.02.2026 Hardik Nanda ….Petitioner Versus Panjab University and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Jattana, Advocate, and Mr. Mandeep Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for the respondent-University.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1) The petitioner, who is a student of B.A./B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) 5 Years Integrated Course of the respondent-University, is compelled to beseech indulgence of this Court, against the order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-7), vide which, his request for restoration of admission, and to take examinations of 3^rd semester was not acceded to, in the light of Rule 16 of the Handbook of Information, 2025.

2) Since the facts of the present case would have a decisive bearing upon evaluation of the legality of the impugned order, it would be essential to have a brief and comprehend narration thereof.

3) The petitioner secured admission in the B.A/B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) 5 Years Integrated Course with the respondent University, during the Session 2024-25. Accordingly, he appeared in the first semester examinations, but out of six, he could clear only two examinations.

However, in sync with the relevant conditions/rules, the petitioner was promoted to the next semester, which commenced from January, 2025. Thereafter, he took examinations for the second semester, which were scheduled in the month of May/June, 2025. The result was declared on 12.09.2025, per which, he cleared only three examinations. Pertinently, for getting promotion to the third semester (2^nd year), he was required to clear, at least, 50% of the examinations of the previous semesters. Though, as reflected above, the petitioner could not make out to reach the benchmark, but he was provisionally allowed to attend the classes of the third semester which commenced, w.e.f. 11.07.2025. As a consequence, he proceeded to attend classes from 21.07.2025 till 20.09.2025. However, when the result of second semester was declared on 12.09.2025, the authorities detained him from attending further classes of the said semester. Thereupon, without wasting much time, the petitioner on 13.09.2025, applied for re-evaluation, which resulted in his favour and he was declared pass in one more examination. However, the result of the re-evaluation was declared on 21.09.2025, but in a confidential manner. Since the result was not made accessible to the petitioner till 21.12.2025, he was not allowed to appear in the third semester examinations, which were slated w.e.f. 28.11.2025 till 24.12.2025.

4) On the basis of the abovesaid chronology of the events, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the following three fold arguments:-

1) Had the result of re-evaluation been declared/made accessible in time, the petitioner would have been able to continue the classes of third semester, and would also have taken the examinations, which were held in the month of November/December, 2025.

2) Had the respondent-University evaluated the answer books correctly, at the first instance itself, the petitioner would not have to suffer. Therefore, apparently, the respondent-University is at fault. Reliance in this regard is placed upon an order dated 30.01.2025, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-2074-2025 (Gursimran Singh Vs. Panjab University and others); and

3) Albeit, the respondent-University has not declined the request of the petitioner on account of shortage of lectures, still it is expedient to bring to the notice of this Court that since he attended classes from 21.07.2025 till 20.09.2025, for third semester, and being an active participant in the Legal Aid Society & Clinic of the UILS, he is entitled to seek condonation in lectures. Therefore, he has also crossed the barrier of shortage of lectures, if any. Needless to mention that, such a concession has already been extended to other students.

5) In the