BALWANT SINGH GANDHI Vs. RAVISHANKAR UNIVERSITY RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution and pray for quashing the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor (Kulapati) of Ravishankar University, Rajpur (respondent No. 2) conveyed to them by the Registrar of the said University vide his letter dated 1-8-1973 (Annexure I)disqualifying them from appearing at the Final M. B. B. S. Practical Examination July, 1973.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioners are the students of Final M. B. B. S. class in the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, rajpur (hereinafter referred to as "the College" ). The College is affiliated to ravishanker University (hereinafter referred to as "the University" ). The petitioners were admitted to the Final M. B. B. S. conducted by the University in the year 1973. The petitioners had appeared in their theory papers in all the concerned subjects of the examination, but before they could appear in Practical examination, a show cause notice dated 27-7-1973 (Annexure IV) was served upon them as to why they should not be disqualified from appearing at the ensuing Final M. B. B. S. Practical Examination of July, 1973, since they threatened an examiner that if he did not pass them at the ensuing Final M. B. B. S. Examination, they would bodily injure him and thereby they were guilty of grave misconduct and breach of discipline. After considering the reply of the petitioners, the Kulapati disqualified both the petitioners from appearing at the Final M. B. B. S. Practical Examination, 1973. The petitioners have come up before this Court challenging this order which was conveyed to them through the Registrar of the university (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order ). The impugned order has been passed by the Kulapati in exercise of his powers under Ordinance No. 46 of the University.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners confined his submissions to two points only. Firstly, that the Kulapati had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the matter did not fall within the purview of Ordinance No. 46 of the university but under Clause 10 of Ordinance No. 6 wherein the power vests with the Executive Council. Secondly, in the alternative, it was submitted that in the absence of any regulation framed by the Executive Council delegating its powers as envisaged under Section 23 (xxxi) of the Ravishankar University Act, 1963, the kulapati had no authority to pass the impugned order and Ordinance No. 46 which confers such powers on the Kulapati is ultra vires. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Ordinance No. 46 is a valid piece of legislation and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of sub-clause (a) (iv) of Clause I of the Ordinance No. 46 apply and not clause 10 of the Ordinance No. 6, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be challenged on any one of the counts as contended on behalf of the petitioners.