In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court regularized the admission of a BDS student, Harsimran Kaur, who had already completed her course while her legal challenge against admission cancellation was still pending. The Court strongly emphasized that no person should suffer because of judicial delay, especially when they have acted in good faith.
"No party should suffer because of the fault or delay of the Court," observed the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel.
Read also:- J&K High Court: Revenue Officer Must Follow Section 111-A Of Land Revenue Act When Title Dispute Is Raised
The case began when the student's admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course was cancelled in 2017. The reason stated was that she had scored 49.66% marks in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, just below the 50% eligibility requirement. Her plea was first rejected by a single judge, following which she approached the division bench.
During the appeal, the Court granted interim relief and allowed her to continue her studies. Based on this, she completed her degree, which was also officially awarded to her by the institution.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Confirms: Police Can Register FIRs Under PCPNDT Act, Offences Are Cognizable
Justice Sumeet Goel explained that when a litigant receives interim relief such as a stay or right to continue studies, and the final verdict is delayed, that relief becomes more than temporary. The Court must consider the real-life impact of the delay.
"If, owing to systemic delays, the final determination is deferred for a long time, the litigant must not be deprived of benefits that accrued in the meantime," the bench observed.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Denies Interim Bail to PFI Leader A.S. Ismail, Citing Improved Medical Condition
Senior counsel for the student argued that she had completed her studies and deserved regularization of her admission. The Court agreed, stating that it would be against principles of justice and fairness to cancel her admission now.
"It would be wholly repugnant to equity and fair play if judicial delay leads to forfeiture of rights or causes irreversible harm," said the Court.
Moreover, it was highlighted that her admission did not affect any other candidate as it was made against a vacant seat.
Read Also:- Delhi HC Reserves Verdict on Parents’ Petition Against DPS Dwarka Over Fee Hike and Student Expulsions
The Court also made a notable remark comparing the situation:
"The withdrawal of such interim relief, after it has matured into a de facto entitlement, would be akin to stripping armour from a soldier mid-battle," the bench remarked.
The division bench set aside the single judge's order and quashed the earlier communication that found her ineligible. It also clarified that this decision was made considering the unique facts of the case and should not be treated as a general precedent.
The case was titled Harsimran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others.
Appearing Counsel:
- Mr. B.S. Patwalia and Mr. Abhishek Masih represented the appellant.
- Mr. Salil Sabhlok represented the State of Punjab.
- Other respondents were represented by Mr. Gautam Pathania, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Mr. Parminder Singla, and Mr. M.S. Longia.
