CHARAN SINGH Vs. PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a second year student of B.A. (Honours) in English studying in P.G.D.A.V. College, Delhi, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Principal of the College, to issue to him the admission ticket in the final examination of the second year of B.A. (Honours) English, Notice to show cause was issued to the respondents and at the same time by interim order it was directed that petitioner be allowed to take his examination, but his result shall not be declared till the disposal of the petition.

(2.) Answer to show cause notice was filed by the Principal, the first respondent. He says admission ticket could not issue to the petitioner as he was short of attendance under the attendance regulations of the Delhi University which were binding on the college. The petitioner fell short of attendance. As a matter of fact, it was submitted that the petitioner and other students similarly situated were warned by notices that they were short of attendance and were to make up the deficiency in future. Petitioner's case, however, is that he was ill and submitted a medical certificate. This fact has been denied by the Principal. He says attendance regulations provide that if a student fell sick and was absent from the college, a medical certificate must be submitted within one week of rejoining the college and that no medical certificate would be accepted after one week. The petitioner did not submit any medical certificate in the first year and the college, therefore, could not accept the medical certificate pertaining to the previous year. In the rejoinder the petitioner said that the Principal had asked him to submit his medical certificate even in the second year on 9 April 1994 and even accepted- such medical certificates from other students as well, thus, belying his statement that a medical certificate was required to be filed within one week of the student's rejoining the college. Petitioner said he personally met the Principal on 6 April 1993 who refused to accept the medical certificate from him and told him that since he was being issued admission ticket for the first year examination he need not file the medical certificate. The petitioner filed yet another affidavit giving the names of four students whose medical certificates, he said, the Principal had taken on record at the time of issuing admission tickets to them. The Principal in his affidavit-in-reply has denied the averments made by the petitioner and explained as to how the admission tickets were either issued or refused in the four cases mentioned by the petitioner.

(3.) We find the petitioner has made unnecessary allegations against the Principal which, perhaps, he could have avoided. Admission ticket was rightly denied to him as per the university regulations and we find no fault in the action of the Principal in refusing admission ticket to the petitioner. This Court must guard itself against interfering in the education matters unless the impugned action is arbitrary, unreasonable or malafide. We will, therefore, dismiss this petition.