Jagram Chauhan v. Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
! "#$%&!'$$ ( &
! $"#$%&!!!
)$ &&!
%
!" # $ %&$ ' % $ %&$
( ( )$*+
!
, -$ %&$ ( ./01 2 %3%$!
%&4 !
!54$ %&$ ( '$$*+*,*-*."/*- )
- .7 .8./$ 9" 2 ! :
0)/;;.0.8)< 49" =
)) 8;
.8)7 % )/ 8< .8)7
> 0.+4-&9" 44
.
2 ! & 9& $ 9 9
&& 0 & & & & 9% &4 &
-
> +*/*00/-12/3/*00 0+/454$,*3-$6+. $$7
4&44 9"3# $4 & 4 9 4 && 9"& & &$44
/
4 4 & & % $
> 9" %
& ? &
@ ? " && & & & @ & & && 4 9" & & & 4 &&& &$ 4& 5 && 9 & % 9& $& 49 9 & & .8$888A0 4 %4 .+9 ' & '9 @4&"& & &"& 0 && 9 & B C &- Amardeep Singh Sahota vs. State of Punjab 1993(4) S.C.T. 328, Raj Singh vs.
Maharishi Dayanand University 1994(2) S.C.T. 766, Sachin Gaur vs. Punjabi University 1996(1) S.C.T. 837, Rahul Prabhakar vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997(3) S.C.T. 526, Indu Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab 1999(4) S.C.T. 113 and Rupinder Singh and others vs.
Training, Chandigarh and others 2001(2) S.C.T. 726 which though pertain to the admission process but the principle remains the same. * & && &$ 9 & & 0$& & 4&9 % 9" " % 4 ? & D9" 9 & 0 4$ % & 4 % E 2 '
& 9% & & &" 9
& ( 6 && 4 49" &4 -& && && 4 && 4&9 09" 2 ! &
&49"
"$
9 - $ 4& 4 9 9-&
@ $4 " " - 9"2 ! $4& & $4 & + :& !& )) 1 & &$);*+$9 %9"4 % 1 %
@$ 0&$% & && 9" % -& 9 09$ 4 9 4& & 9 4 ? 4 " &
@$4& & %9 & &
9 4
"$ %4 9% & $
'$$ ( & "#'! !!
)$ &&!
% "#'!
: 5 A 3 : 9 3