THE PRINCIPAL, I.L.M COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE TECHNO VILLAGE Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Principal of an aided college affiliated to the first respondent University, challenging Ext.P17 order issued by the University directing the petitioner to readmit the 3rd respondent to the college. It is contended that the 3rd respondent was a student of the college for B.com (Computer Application). There were complaints raised against him as early as in 2015, soon after he was admitted in the college. It is stated that though the complaints were received against the 3rd respondent and though he had shortage of attendance, he was permitted to write the first year examination and to pursue his studies for the 2nd year. It is stated that the 3rd respondent and his father had agreed to obtain T.C from the College in case of future instances of indiscipline etc occur. It is stated that thereafter, the 3rd respondent had been placed under suspension along with other students on an allegation with regard to misconduct and mis-behavior. The suspension was on 28.02.2017. It is stated that a disciplinary committee was formed and Ext.P9 final report dated 10.3.2017 was made available in the matter. However, instead of acting upon the recommendations in Ext.P9 final report, the 3rd respondent was permitted to write the examination of 2nd year B.com and was enabled to avail transfer certificate and seek an intercollegiate transfer to any other college. It is stated that pursuant thereto, the student had also made request for issuance of the transfer certificate and other documents necessary for the intercollegiate transfer. The entire documents necessary, including no objection certificate and the transfer certificate had been issued to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner.

(2.) However, it is stated that on the basis of Ext. P15 complaint preferred by the 3rd respondent, the University had issued Ext.P17 order dated 15.7.2017 to readmit the student. It is contended that Ext.P17 order is issued under the mistaken impression that the petitioner had taken disciplinary proceedings against the 3rd respondent and the grant of T.C was on account of the disciplinary proceedings issued against the 3rd respondent.

(3.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.