HAMIDUR REHMAN Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant applied for admission on 7.5.2012 to MA (Persian) Course in the respondent Jamia Millia Islamia University (hereinafter referred to as ,,the respondent university) for the academic session 2012-2014. He secured 85 marks in written examination and 15 marks in the interview. As against 30 seats, the respondent university received 35 applications including that of the appellant. The appellant, on the basis of the marks, was placed in 21st rank. Going by the ranking, he was entitled to be admitted to the said course. However, he was not selected and only 20 applicants were selected leaving 10 seats vacant. As against the denial of admission, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition on the ground that the said denial was most illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, unjust, unwarranted and uncalled for. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition finding no merit therein. The learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, noticed that denial of admission was only as a measure of prevention on account of the appellant having committed troublesome and painful acts of indiscipline in the past in the same University and with a view to maintain peace, tranquility and discipline in the respondent university.

(2.) IT is the grievance of the appellant that he was denied admission only for the reason that he had filed a public interest litigation bearing Writ Petition No. 917/2012 (Hamidur Rehman v. Jamia Millia Islamia University & Ors.) against the respondent university for seeking restoration of democracy by way of holding elections suspended in 2006 in the respondent University. It is his further grievance that the denial was because of his further refusal to withdraw the said writ petition even when he was pressurized by the authorities of the respondent university.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent university that the denial of admission is not on the ground that the appellant had earlier approached this Court by filing a public interest litigation. The learned senior counsel would further submit that at no point of time the authorities of the respondent university either asked or pressurised the appellant to withdraw the said writ petition and because the appellant refused to withdraw, he was denied admission. The appellant in fact applied for different courses in the same university and the Vice Chancellor of the university received reports from heads of each of the departments stating that the appellant was offensive and aggressive against the university and he was made his remarks against the Procter of the university saying that a single person had been in the past since long and there has been no change. He had also made scathing remarks on the management as if the management was indulging in malpractices. Only based on those reports and having noticed the past conduct and the aggressive nature of the appellant, the Vice Chancellor was compelled to decide not to admit the appellant to the course in the interest of the students of the institution and the decision was only in order to maintain the discipline in the university. Learned senior counsel would also submit that in any case, the right to admit a student vests in the management and no student can claim such admission as a matter of right. He would also submit that when the question of discipline is put in issue, statute 31 of the statutes framed under the Jamia Millia Islamia Act empowers the Vice Chancellor to deny such admissions.