Writ Court Shouldn't Take Hyper Technical View: P&H High Court Allows Student To Complete Course Despite Admission Without Qualification

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has allowed a student to complete his course who was admitted to a college without the mandatory qualification of having a Hindi subject in Class X, observing that she already completed 1.5 years out of 2 years of the course and he did not commit any fraud.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The purpose of legal norms is to uphold fairness, not to be applied mechanically to defeat substantial justice. Where a party, albeit initially ineligible, has acted in good faith and without any fraudulent intent, and where no overriding public interest is adversely affected, equity demands that the individual should not be subjected to disproportionate hardship solely on the basis of a technical defect at the inception."

Speaking for the bench, Justice Goel said that the writ Court, as the guardian of justice, must ensure that legal procedures are not used as instruments of rigidity, but rather as vehicles for advancing fairness and mitigating undue hardship.

"Judicial intervention is warranted where a litigant has acted in good faith and where allowing strict compliance with technical requirements would result in unwarranted hardship," the bench added.

The plea was filed by Jasmeen Kaur seeking quashing of the order passed by the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Punjab, cancelling admission of the petitioner to the Diploma in Elementary Education.

Kaur was given admission by the Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Education. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination for Hindi as an additional paper in Class X and her result for the same came to be declared on 26.05.2023.

Subsequently, the State Council of Educational Research and Training cancelled her admission stating that she had not passed the Hindi examination in Class X at the time of admission and the same was a mandatory qualification.

After examining the submissions, the Court considered the question "whether the admission granted to the petitioner deserves to be cancelled at this stage, especially in view of the common ground of the rival parties, that the petitioner has undertaken substantial part of the course in question."

Answering the issue, the Court said, "The doctrine of proportionality, another cornerstone of judicial review, necessitates that the adverse impact on the petitioner must be weighed against the broader objectives of the regulatory framework."

The bench highlighted that in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, the writ Court must not render a decision that results in punitive detriment to the litigant, especially when no fraud, misrepresentation, or malafide intent is attributable to such litigant.

In the present case, the Court took note of the fact that the course in question is of 2 years duration, out of which about 11⁄2 years already stands successfully undertaken by the petitioner and "there is no material brought forth to indicate that the petitioner has indulged in any fraudulent or shenanigan practice(s) so as to secure admission to the course in question."

Considering that the petitioner had attained the requisite qualification by passing the Hindi subject in the Class X examination much before passing the impugned order whereby the admission was cancelled, the Court allowed the plea.

Adding a word of caution the bench said that "the present case shall not be construed as precedent."

Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5.

Title: Jasmeen Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 86

Click here to read/download the order