Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.:— The petitioner was selected and admitted by respondent No. 3 in D.Ed Course in Government J.B.T School, Ferozepur Namak, District Gurgaon. The requisite qualification for admission to D.Ed Course is Matric/Higher Secondary Part-I or any other equivalent examination. As per formula laid down by Government, weightage of marks was provided to the candidates possessing higher qualification. The petitioner at the time of admission, had passed BA. Part-II examination and had appeared in BA. Part-III examination but at the time of admission her result had not been declared. Later on, it came to the notice of respondent No. 3 on the scrutiny of original certificates of academic qualification produced by the petitioner that petitioner had been given the benefit of having passed B.A Part-III whereas she had passed BA. Part-II examination. In view of this, respondent No. 3 vide order dated 4.11.1988 copy Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, cancelled the petitioner's admission in the D.Ed course. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 4.11.1988, vide which the admission was cancelled.
2. The plea raised at the Bar is that the respondents are estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioner as the petitioner is not guilty of concealing anything nor had produced any false document at the time of admission.
3. The other argument is that the petitioner was duly qualified for admission to D.Ed, course as she had the requisite qualification.
4. The respondents have filed reply and not disputed the facts. However, it was contended that the petitioner was given five marks by taking into account her qualification as BA. Part-III in 1st Division whereas actually the petitioner had passed BA. Part II and as such she was not eligible for any weightage.
5. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.
6. The principle of law is well established that once admission is given it cannot be cancelled subsequently in the midst of the session on hyper-technical points. It is not disputed that the petitioner had possessed the requisite qualification, i.e BA. Part-II and was eligible for admission also, per merit. If the petitioner's admission is cancelled at this stage when the term of the course has ended it will be ruining the career of a young person who will be left to wilderness.
7. This Court vide order dated 9.12.1988 had allowed the petitioner to attend the classes and it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has also appeared in the examination. The duration of the course is two years. It came to an end in August, 1990.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, instead of taking a legalistic view, of the matter, this Court used to have compassionate view Consequently, the petition is allowed, order dated 4.11.1988, Annexure P-2, is quashed and respondents are directed to regularise the admission of the petitioner and declare the result forthwith.
9. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
10. Petition allowed.