MANOJ TEWARI Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH SODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Surya Kant, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

(2.) THE applicant was a student of Master of Arts in Arab Culture in the University of Lucknow. THE Admission Committee of the University, by an or der, cancelled his admission in M. A. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 1595 (M/s) of 1994, which was allowed by a judgment dated 4. 10. 1994. THE Writ Court found that the basic principles of natural justice was not complied with by the University and accordingly quashed the order of expulsion. THE Writ Court passed the following operative order: "without going into the merits of other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, I am fully satisfied that the impugned order of expulsion is liable to be quashed as no opportunity was given to the petitioner and is in violation to the principles of natural justice. THE petition is liable to be al lowed on this ground alone. I accordingly quash the decision of the admission committee passed in the meeting held on 25. 7. 1994 communicated by letter dated 27. 7. 1994 can celling the petitioner's admission in M. A. Part-1 (Arab Culture) and debar ring him to take admission for three years. "

(3.) IT transpires that based on the interim order dated 9. 2. 1995, the University, through the Proctor, issued an order dated 22. 2. 1995 revoking the suspension of the applicant till the conclusion of a fresh enquiry. IT transpires that subsequently the applicant was again suspended on charges of forgery in the mark sheets and was issued a show-cause notice requiring him to show cause, as to why, he should not be expelled. The applicant challenged the show-cause notice by filing Writ Petition No. 384 (M/s) of 1995 which was eventually dismissed by a judgment dated 5. 4. 1995. The Writ Court held that the Proctor has the jurisdiction and the authority to pass an order of suspension. The Writ Court further directed the University authorities to conclude the dis ciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The operative portion of the order dated 5. 4. 1995 is quoted hereunder: "before parting with the case it will be in the interest of justice to di rect the University authorities to conclude disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner at the earliest possible so as to enable him to pursue his further studies in case the charges levelled against him are ultimately dropped. "