AMIT KUMAR BASHISTA Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up by the petitioner is that Jamia Millia Islamia University (Respondent No.1), is a Central University constituted by Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 (hereinafter "the Act"). The Vice Chancellor (Respondent No.2) supervises all the activities of the University.. Respondent No.3 is the Dean of Engineering Faculty. Petitioner after passing final year examination for the Diploma in Electronics Engineering in First Division with distinction decided to pursue B.E. (Electronics) evening course, as it provided reservation of 25% seats for internal students who have passed qualifying examination from the same University, provided they fulfill the minimum requirements for the course and qualify the entrance test. Petitioner appeared in the entrance test. On 22.11.2001 the result was announced and he was declared successful. After the interviews, University brought out the list of 30 selected candidates for admission and the petitioner was placed at serial number one in the waiting list. On 9.1.2002 second list was put on the Notice Board, selecting the first three names, in the waiting list. The admission form was issued to the petitioner, but he was refused the fee slip, without assigning any reason. The candidates below the petitioner in the Waiting List were given fee slip. When the petitioner approached the authorities, no reason was given. On 18.1.2002, petitioner made a representation to the Vice Chancellor, which was not replied. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court, praying for writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to admit the petitioner in B.E.(Electronics) evening course. Show cause notice was issued.

(2.) The respondents, in reply, did not dispute the above-noted facts. However, it is pleaded that names of all those candidates who are recommended a particular course are ultimately vetted by the Proctor's Office. When the name of petitioner was sent there, it was revealed that he was involved in serious misconduct of manufacturing of fraudulent degrees/mark sheets; that he was named in the case FIR No.454 of 2000, P.S. Friends Colony, under Sections 420/468, IPC and that his conduct and role was under investigation by the University authorities. It is further pleaded that petitioner also sought to bribe an official working in the office of the Proctor to procure admissions and that his conduct did not inspire confidence, therefore, the University was constrained to deny him admission.

(3.) In the rejoinder affidavit, averments in the counter affidavit are denied. The petitioner also filed copies of representations with the rejoinder in support of his pleas. Facts are not in dispute. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the matter can be heard and disposed of at this stage itself.