BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY VARANASI Vs. VIKAS JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vikas Jain (writ petitioner and respondent in appeal) seeking admission in B. Com Part-I in Banaras Hindu University in the academic session 1997-98 appeared in the Undergraduate Entrance Test. An intimation dated 19-7-1997 was sent to him from the University that he had qualified in the test. He went to deposit the admission fee which was not accepted and ultimately he was denied admission. He then filed writ petition No. 26317 of 1997 which was allowed by a learned single Judge by the judgment and order dated 28-11-1997 and the appellants herein (respondents in writ petition) were directed to admit him in B. Com. Part-I in the academic session 1997-98. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the University has preferred this Special Appeal.

(2.) The case set up by Vikas Jain in writ petition was that he had appeared in the Entrance Test seeking admission in B. Com. Part-I in the academic session 1996-97 but the invigilator prevented him from answering the whole paper. He then applied for admission in the academic session 1997-98 for which he was issued admit card by the University to appear in the Entrance Test which was held on 10-6-1997. He qualified in the test and intimation to that effect was sent by the University asking him to attend the office on Ist and 2/08/1997 for depositing the fee and to complete other formalities. He went several times to the University office but ultimately he was orally informed that he would not be granted admission in the University. The University filed a Counter Affidavit and the plea taken therein was that while appearing in the Entrance Test held for the academic session 1996-97 the writ petitioner was found talking to another student and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in any future examination of the University. This action had also been approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 26-6-1996.

(3.) The learned single Judge held that no notice had been given to the writ petitioner nor he was given any opportunity to explain his conduct and, therefore, the decision of the University to debar him from any future examination was illegal. It was further held that it was not conclusively proved that the writ petitioner had talked to another student and even assuming that he had done so it could not lead to an inference that he had resorted to unfair means.