MANOJ KUMAR Vs. JAMIA MILLIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a student of First Year B.A. (Hon.) Political Science in the Jamia Millia Islamia a Central University established by the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. The Petitioner Challenges Annexure-D notification, dated 3.10.97 by which his admission to First year B.A. (Hon.) course was cancelled by the First respondent Jamia Millia Islamia.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he applied for admission to First Year B.A. (Hon.) Political Science course in Jamia Millia Islamia during 1997-98. He appeared in the Entrance Test and in the Interview and topped both in the Entrance Test and in the Interview. He was selected for admission and was allowed to deposit the admission fee on 6.10.1997. He was admitted to the course with effect from 20.10.1997 as evidenced by Annexure B admission slip. He deposited necessary fees for issuing the identity card on 27th October, 1997 and the identity card was delivered to him on 5th November, 1997 as evidenced by Annexure C. It is also stated in the petition that though the petitioner was regularly attending the classes from 20th October, 1997, a notice dated 3rd October, 1997 was issued on 5th November, 1997 cancelling the admission of the petitioner. Annexure-D is a copy, of the said notice dated 3rd October, 1997 which reads as follows:

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent University, it is admitted that the petitioner was admitted to First Year B.A.(Hon.) Political Science course on the basis of the Entrance Test and the interview. The averment of the petitioner that he had topped in the written test and the interview is not denied by the respondent. It is also not disputed that the notice cancelling the admission was issued to the petitioner, only on 5th November, 1997. However, the respondent University seeks to justify the cancellation of admission on the ground that there was a gap of six years between the year of passing the qualifying examination and the year of admission to the First Year B.A.(Hon.) course. According to the respondent, Rule 12 of the Rules relating to admission provided that the case of a candidate who gave up his studies for three or more academic years after taking a Degree/Diploma/Certificate will be considered for admission by the Admission Review Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, the Proctor, the Dean and the Head of the Department concerned. As a matter of policy the Admission Review Committee had decided that any candidate having more than four years gap in academics immediately period to the filling of the application for admission should be denied admission. The said decision was taken keeping in view that the applicants far out number the total available seats and the best have to be selected. It is also stated that the Expert Body (Admission Review Committee) felt that students with least gap in academics should be given a chance on priority vis-a-vis those who have larger academic gaps in their career. According to the respondent, the petitioner who had academic gap of six years was not entitled to admission in the light of the policy decision taken by the Admission Review Committee. But owing to an unitentioned error the name of the petitioner somehow got cleared for admission. It is further stated that once the above mentioned anomaly was noticed, a notification was immediately issued for cancellation of the admission of the petitioner. It is further stated that classes in first year B.A. (Hon.) course effectively started only on 3rd November, 1997 and that the admission of the petitioner was cancelled immediately precluding any possibility of his attending classes. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in truth the petitioner got his name registered on 21.10.97, that he attended classes only on 22.10.97 and that subsequently the petitioner did not attend any class in the said course. The respondent has also filed an additional affidavit explaining the rationale for denying admission to candidates who have larger gaps in their academic careers. It is also admitted in the additional affidavit that the impugned notice was issued only on 3.11.97 and that it was wrongly dated 3.10.97. Along with the additional affidavit the respondent has produced a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Admission Review Committee held on 3rd October, 1997. It is seen from the said minutes that against the name of the Petitioner, the decision originally recorded was "Yes" and it was subsequently scored off.