DEVID BANSILAL JOSHI Vs. REGISTRAR GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three petitioners in the present three petitions, are the students of the respondent No. 2 - Department of Social Work, pursuing their Masters of Social Work (M.S.W.). By way of the present petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they have sought directions against the respondent - Gujarat University to declare their results of semester-IV, and further to quash and set aside the inquiry constituted against the petitioners, and to constitute a committee to inquire into the complaint of the petitioners against the respondent No. 4. The petitioners have also sought compensation against the respondents for causing mental trauma and for spoiling career of the petitioners.

(2.) As transpiring from the petitions, the respondent No. 4 was the former Professor at MSW and is now Dean of Arts Faculty - Gujarat University, and the respondent No. 5 is the Professor and close aide of the respondent No. 4. According to the petitioners, their results were withheld by the respondent - University for many months without disclosing any reasons, and hence, they had approached this Court by filing the petition being No. 17040 of 2018. The said petition was disposed of by the Court vide the order dated 26.11.2018, whereby the Court directed the Gujarat University to look into the representations made by the petitioners at the earliest and inform the petitioners in writing the reasons for withholding their results of fourth semester exams within one week from the date of the receipt of the order. It was further observed that if the petitioners were dissatisfied with the reasons assigned by the University for withholding the results, then it would be open for the petitioners to avail of the appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Court, the University informed the petitioners that an inquiry committee was constituted against the petitioners, and therefore, their results could not be declared. They were also informed that the complaint was made by the Professor against the petitioners, and Vice Chancellor has constituted the committee. The petitioners being dissatisfied by the said communication, have preferred the present petitions.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions vehemently submitted that the respondent No. 4 was harassing the petitioners as they had raised certain grievances against the autocratic functioning of the respondent No. 4, as a result of which the respondent No. 4 had apprehension that he would lose his position as the Dean of the faculty. He, therefore, was determined to destroy the career of the petitioners at any cost. Mr. Jha further submitted that the level of harassment of mental torture of the respondent No. 4 with the aid of respondent No. 5 was to such an extent that the petitioner Devid Banshilal Joshi who is blind, had attempted to commit suicide. The respondent No. 4 was infamous for all his misadventures and was also suspended earlier by the University, however, because of the political connections, no action was being taken against him. Mr. Jha also submitted that the action of the respondent - University in withholding the result of the petitioners without any cogent reason was arbitrary and capricious. The committee constituted by the respondent - University to look into the grievances of the petitioners, had also submitted biased report giving clean chit to the respondent No. 4 and holding the petitioners guilty of misconduct. Such constitution of the committee and its report were also not binding to the petitioners.