RAMLAL GUPTA Vs. PRINCIPAL, VICTORIA COLLEGE, GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or an order directing the opponent to forbear from enforcing his order dated 19 -10 -1954 by which he expelled the petitioner from Victoria College and for directing the opponent to permit the petitioner to attend the college and to receive his training in the course for which he was studying.

(2.) IN his petition the applicant has stated that he applied for admission into the college on 30 -6 -1954 and was duly admitted on 7 -7 -1954; that subsequently on 1 -8 -1954 he was appointed as a typist in the Office of the Director of Education, Gwalior Region; that when the Director of Education circularized a notice dated 21 -9 -1954 calling upon all those employees who were pursuing any course of studies in any college or school, either to resign from their posts or withdraw themselves from the educational institutions within a period of one month, he resigned from the post of typist on 19 -10 -1954; that on this very date at the suggestion of the Deputy Director of Education the opponent passed an order expelling him on the -ground that he had concealed from the college authorities the fact that at the time when he sought admission into the college and thereafter he was in Government employment.

(3.) AT the hearing of this petition Mr. Anand Bihari Misra learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that Ramlal Gupta had made a wrong statement in this petition that he applied for admission on 20 -6 -1954 and that on this date he was not in Government service. Learned counsel sought to explain this by saying that this was due to a lapse of memory. I am not inclined to think so. I find it difficult to believe that when the applicant filled in the application form for admission he did not remember the fact that he was on that date working as a typist in a Government Department. In determining the question whether the applicant was or was not guilty of an act of indiscipline, the question whether he made a correct statement of facts in the application form is very material.