CHANDER PRAKASH MEENA Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court took admission in B.Tech (Civil) course of the respondent-Jamia Millia Islamia University in August, 2002. The maximum permissible time period for completion of the said course, as per Ordinance of the respondent-University, is seven years. The aforesaid duration came to be completed by the petitioner in the year In the 08th Semester Examination held in the year 2009, the 2009. petitioner got compartment in as many as four papers and failed in one paper. As per the rules of the University, a student can appear in compartment examinations in a maximum of four papers. Accordingly, he appeared in compartment in four papers, i.e., CE 402, CE 404, CE 410 and CE 419, but he was not entitled to appear in paper No. CE 313, in which he had failed.

(2.) VIDE letter dated 25.10.2009, the petitioner requested the Vice- Chancellor of the University to give him a chance to appear in CE-313 (Hydrology). He was permitted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, to appear in the aforesaid paper, in the first sessional examination in September, 2010. However, the permission, so granted to the petitioner, was later withdrawn by the Vice-Chancellor and the withdrawal was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 16.06.2011. Being aggrieved from withdrawal of the permission, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) THE Ordinance of the University being statutory in nature is binding on the University and all its functionaries, including the Vice- Chancellor. There is no provision in the Ordinance empowering the Vice-Chancellor to permit a student who has already completed seven years in the course to appear in a sessional examination held after completion of the said period of seven years. No provision in the Ordinance, permitting the Vice-Chancellor to relax the same, has been brought to my notice. It is thus evident that the permission granted by the Vice-Chancellor to the petitioner to appear in the sessional examination held in September/October, 2010 was clearly ultra vires the Ordinance. An act, which was ultra vires the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, does not and cannot bind the University. If the University is made to ratify or accept a decision which is ultra vires the powers of a functionary, that may encourage various functionaries of the University, including the Vice-Chancellor to contravene the provisions of the Ordinance at his will and pleasure, in order to benefit one or more students. Such an act by the Vice-Chancellor would be nothing but a gross misuse of his powers and, therefore, cannot be allowed. The sanctity of the Ordinance, which binds everyone, including the University and its functionaries, needs to be maintained irrespective of consequences, so as to prevent any possible misuse of powers. Even otherwise, it would be necessary to maintain academic discipline that the University strictly adheres to its rules and regulations.