ZAREEQ KHAN Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition were students of Jamia Millia Islamia,respondent in the writ petition. They were pursuing their studies in differentcourses. Disciplinary action was taken against them and in accordance with thedecision of the Discipline Committee, the Vice-Chancellor expelled them from theUniversity for one academic year (1997-98) and a campus ban was imposed onthem for the said duration with immediate effect. On expiry of the period ofexpulsion the petitioners sought re-admission in the academic session 1998-99.Since the respondent refused to re-admit the petitioners in the courses which werebeing undergone by them prior to the above mentioned expulsion, the petitionershave filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent University togive admission to the petitioners in the respective courses.

(2.) Lt. Gen. Zaki (Retd.), Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia has filed anaffidavit in reply to the notice issued to show cause why the petition be notadmitted, For a proper appreciation of the stand of the respondent it is necessaryto quote the following paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the Vice-Chancellor.

(3.) The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is thatthe petitioners were already punished for the alleged acts of indiscipline byexpelling them from the University for one academic year (1997-98) only hence onexpiry of the period of expulsion they are entitled to be restored to the positionwhich existed before the expulsion and, therefore, they are entitled to be readmittedto the respective courses which were being undergone by them. According to thelearned counsel, by denying readmission to the course concerned, the petitionerswere given yet another punishment for the same acts of indiscipline for whichdisciplinary action was taken and punishment was imposed. It is contended thatthe action of the respondent in imposing such a second punishment is illegal,unauthorised and without competence. However, the contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondent is that the decision to deny readmission to thepetitioners is not part of the earlier disciplinary action which culminated in theexpulsion of the petitioners from the University for one academic year. Thedecision not to admit the petitioners is a fresh and independent decision taken bythe respondent in the larger interests of the University as a whole and of theexisting students in particular. I find that the above contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondent.is supported by the averments in the affidavit of theVice-Chancellor. The impugned action of denying admission/readmission to thepetitioners is independent of the disciplinary action already taken against thepetitioners. As stated by the Vice-Chancellor, the denial of admission/readmissionto the petitioners is not another punishment for the misconduct or indiscipline whichled to the expulsion of the petitioners for one academic year and it is only apreventive measure to maintain discipline and safeguard the academic career ofthousands of students. Hence the question is whether such denial of admission/readmission of a student as a preventive measure to maintain discipline andsafeguard academic career of another students is legal and authorised.