CWP-27647-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Amisha Panjab University and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. from Chandigarh University (respondent No.4) to Panjab University (respondent No.1) academic session 2024 2. respondent No.1 University lays down conditions for being eligible to participate in following effect : “1. 2. 3. 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Panjab University and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Anuj Malik, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Pankaj Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate, **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The issue raised in this petition is from Chandigarh University (respondent No.4) to Panjab University (respondent No.1) in the midst of three years LL.B. course pertaining to mic session 2024-25. It is not disputed at the Bar that the prospectus (Annexure P respondent No.1 University lays down conditions for being eligible to participate in Migration Test for 3rd and 5 following effect :- “1. Migration cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 2. Migration to 1st, 2nd, 3rd permitted. 3. Migration to LL.B. 3rd and 5 permitted on the recommendation of the Board of Control of the Department/Director/Principal of the Institution subject to the following conditions : -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27647-2024 Date of decision : 13.05.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, and for the petitioner. Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. ( Oral ) issue raised in this petition is as to the eligibility of migration from Chandigarh University (respondent No.4) to Panjab University of three years LL.B. course pertaining to It is not disputed at the Bar that the prospectus (Annexure P-7) of respondent No.1 University lays down conditions for being eligible to and 5th semester, which are to the Migration cannot be claimed as a matter of right. rd & 4th semester is not and 5th Semesters shall be permitted on the recommendation of the Board of Control of the Department/Director/Principal of the Institution subject to the following conditions : 2024 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents to the eligibility of migration from Chandigarh University (respondent No.4) to Panjab University of three years LL.B. course pertaining to 7) of respondent No.1 University lays down conditions for being eligible to to the NAROTAM DASS 2025.05.14 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27647-2024 4. to 10 3. (a) and (b) of condition No.3 above, but does not fulfil in clause (c) pursued by her in 1 different by four subjects, when compared with the course of 1 semester in respondent No.1 University. Therefore, since the difference is of more than two subjects, the petitioner was not eligible for m was allowed to appear in the 4. having cleared the respondents No Migration who are arrayed as private respondents. 5. hand, contends that the petitioner was not el eligibility criteria contained in clause (c) of condition No.3, as the difference 2024 (a) LL.B. Degree of the University from where the candidate is seeking migration is re equivalent to LL.B. Degree of Panjab University. (b) The student has cleared all the papers of previous semesters. (c) The difference between the courses covered by such candidate in 1st year (1 earlier institutions, in c semester and 1st & 2nd case of migration to 5th more than two papers. 4. to 10. x x x x x x Undisputedly, the petitioner satisfies criteria contained in (a) and (b) of condition No.3 above, but does not fulfil in clause (c). Deficiency in eligibility suffered by pursued by her in 1st and 2nd semester in respondent No.4 University are different by four subjects, when compared with the course of 1 in respondent No.1 University. Therefore, since the difference is of more than two subjects, the petitioner was not eligible for m was allowed to appear in the Migration Test. The candidates who were allowed to migrate having cleared the Migration Test have been impleaded by the petitioner as respondents No.5 to 33. The only ground raised in Migration Test, the petitioner secured more marks than the other candidates, arrayed as private respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 University, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was not el eligibility criteria contained in clause (c) of condition No.3, as the difference -2- LL.B. Degree of the University from where the candidate is seeking migration is recognized as equivalent to LL.B. Degree of Panjab University. The student has cleared all the papers of previous The difference between the courses covered by year (1st and 2nd semester) in earlier institutions, in case of migration to 3rd year (1st to 4th semester), in th semester should not be of more than two papers. x x x x x x” Undisputedly, the petitioner satisfies criteria contained in clauses (a) and (b) of condition No.3 above, but does not fulfill the criteria contained suffered by petitioner is that the courses semester in respondent No.4 University are different by four subjects, when compared with the course of 1st and 2 in respondent No.1 University. Therefore, since the difference is of more than two subjects, the petitioner was not eligible for migration, yet she Test. The candidates who were allowed to migrate in 3rd semester after Test have been impleaded by the petitioner as . The only ground raised in the petition is that in the Test, the petitioner secured more marks than the other candidates, Learned counsel for respondent No.1 University, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was not eligible for having not satisfied eligibility criteria contained in clause (c) of condition No.3, as the difference clauses the criteria contained petitioner is that the courses semester in respondent No.4 University are and 2nd in respondent No.1 University. Therefore, since the difference is of igration, yet she semester after Test have been impleaded by the petitioner as the petition is that in the Test, the petitioner secured more marks than the other candidates, Learned counsel for respondent No.1 University, on the other satisfied the eligibility criteria contained in clause (c) of condition No.3, as the difference NAROTAM DASS 2025.05.14 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-27647-2024 of subjects between curriculum of Panjab University and Chandigarh University for 1 two subjects. 6. made by learned counsel for the petitioner raising the ground of discrimination as certain candidates, who had passed the migration despite having not satisfied the eligibility criteria. 7. respect, this so, petitioner cannot claim neg eligible on the last date of submission of application for migration, which fact is not denied by the petitioner. 8. May 13, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2024 of subjects between curriculum of Panjab University and Chandigarh University for 1st and 2nd semester of LL.B. three years course was mor two subjects. During the course of arguments, oral submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner raising the ground of discrimination certain candidates, who had passed the migration despite having not satisfied the eligibility criteria. This Court is afraid that in the absence of pleadings in that t, this Court declines to go into the said ground of discrimination. More so, petitioner cannot claim negative parity, eligible on the last date of submission of application for migration, which fact is not denied by the petitioner. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- of subjects between curriculum of Panjab University and Chandigarh semester of LL.B. three years course was more than During the course of arguments, oral submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner raising the ground of discrimination certain candidates, who had passed the Migration Test, were allowed migration despite having not satisfied the eligibility criteria. This Court is afraid that in the absence of pleadings in that Court declines to go into the said ground of discrimination. More ative parity, especially when she herself was not eligible on the last date of submission of application for migration, which fact In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SUMEET GOEL ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No of subjects between curriculum of Panjab University and Chandigarh e than During the course of arguments, oral submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner raising the ground of discrimination were allowed This Court is afraid that in the absence of pleadings in that Court declines to go into the said ground of discrimination. More when she herself was not eligible on the last date of submission of application for migration, which fact NAROTAM DASS 2025.05.14 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment