ZAREEQ KHAN Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11. 12.1998 dismissing appellants' writ petition is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) . Pursuant to the disciplinary action taken against the appellants and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee, Vice Chancellor of the respondent University expelled the appellants from University for one academic year. Simultaneously ban was imposed on them not to enter University Campus for the same duration. After expiry of the period the petitioners were expelled from University. The appellants sought re-admission in Academic Session 1998-99 for the courses, which they had been undergoing, prior to the order of expulsion. They were denied re-admission. This order of Vice Chancellor was challenged in writ petition. The learned Single Judge relying upon the affidavit of the Vice Chancellor and the powers conferred on the Vice Chancellor in Clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 of the University dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) . Having considered the submissions made at the bar and at the material, which was placed before the learned Single Judge, which has also been made a part of this appeal, we are of the view that no interference is called in the impugned judgment. Statute 31 quoted in the judgment vests all powers relating to discipline and disciplinary action in relation to students on the Vice Chancellor, which also includes power not to admit a student to a course or courses of study in a Department or an Institution of University as candidate has no vested right for admission to a course in an Educational Institution and it cannot be disputed that under the powers vested in him the Vice Chancellor on consideration of relevant factors can refuse admission to a candidate on valid grounds. Learned Single Judge concluded from the material placed before him and from the affidavit of Vice Chancellor that the Vice Chancellor had taken into consideration the relevant factors including the situation prevailing in the respondent University and that despite earnest efforts, it has not been possible to restore normalcy. It was with a view to prevent re-occurrence of violent and criminal acts and of the fact that the appellants had a tainted record of indiscipline, that their presence in the University was considered to be prejudicial and serious threat to the maintenance of discipline and peace in the campus.