CHITRASEN GAUTAM Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the academic session 2008-09 was admitted to the M. Phil. Programme in the Centre for the Study of Law & Governance in the respondent No.1 University. THE Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of the petitioner for the first two semesters was of 4.5. THE Ordinance of the University relating to award of M. Phil. Degree, in Clause 8 thereof vests a discretion in the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research of the University to strike off from the rolls of the University the name of a student who inter alia fails to secure CGPA of 5.0 in the course work. THE University vide its order dated 24th July, 2009 in exercise of powers under Clause 8 of the Ordinance aforesaid removed the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the University with effect from 21 st July, 2009. THE petitioner was accordingly held not eligible to continue with the M. Phil. programme. Aggrieved therefrom, the present petition was filed on or about 27th January, 2010. It was pleaded in the petition that though the petitioner had represented to the University but the case of the petitioner was not considered. THE order of removal of name was challenged on the grounds:

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued, though no interim relief granted.

(3.) THE removal of the petitioner was in July, 2009. THE present petition was filed only after about seven months in January, 2010. Though the petitioner in the petition stated having made representations but expressly pleaded that the same were not considered. However, what has emerged is that the applications of the petitioner for re-evaluation of his grade and the representation of the petitioner against his removal were considered by the appropriate authorities of the University and for detailed reasons stated not accepted. THE petitioner concealed all the said facts from this Court. THE counsel for the respondent University is correct in contending that the grievance of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition was not really against the removal order of 24th July, 2009 but against the order on his application for re-evaluation and on his representation against his removal. THE petitioner did not challenge the said orders. Rather the petitioner made an attempt to conceal the same from this Court. THE counsel for the respondent University with considerable weight has contended that the petitioner wanted to conceal from this Court the charge of plagiarism against him fearing that notice even may not be issued in the petition. It is rightly contended that plagiarism as far as the M. Phil. programme is concerned has serious connotation.