MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANJIT Singh was a student of Diploma in Computer Engineering Course IInd year and was studying in Guru Nanak Dev Polytechnic, Ludhiana. He has filed the present writ petition against the respondents under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the quashment of the order passed by the Principal, Guru Nanak Dev Polytechnic, Malerkotla Road, l.udhiana. respondent No. 3 on 25.10.1999, bearing No. 346, as well as the order dated 21.10.1999, passed by the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, alleging that these orders are illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and have been passed at the back of the petitioner. He has further prayed that directions be issued to respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to attend the classes in the institute for 3rd semester of the course Diploma in Computer Engineering, Further, it was prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to issue roll number to the petitioner so that he may be able to appear in the 3rd semester.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got admission in Diploma in Computer Engineering in the institution of respondent No. 3 in the first semester in the middle of 1998. He appeared in the examination in the months of December, 1998 and obtained 568 marks out of 800. The petitioner later on appeared in the 2nd semester in the month of May, 1999 and got 557 marks out of 800. It is alleged by the petitioner that the police of Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana registered a false FIR on the basis of vague allegations levelled against him under Sections 205 and 420 I.P.C, The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which was granted by the High Court on 4.11.1999. Respondent No. 3 passed the order Annexure P4 vide which the petitioner was suspended from the college on 21.10.1999. It is alleged by the petitioner that the FIR, which has been lodged against him, is false one. Nobody has ever impersonated on his behalf. There was no basis for the registration of criminal case against him. The petitioner has not been convicted by any competent Court of jurisdiction. The mere registration of FIR against the petitioner does not entitle respondent No. 3 to suspend him from attending the classes. The action oh the part of respondent No. 3 is illegal, as a result of that the petitioner is not in a position to undertake the examination to be conducted by respondent No. 2. The action on the part of respondent No. 2 dated 21.11.1999 is also illegal. In short, the case of the petitioner is that nobody ever impersonated on his behalf, therefore, the present writ be issued by issuing suitable directions against the respondents.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 also filed a separate written statement and denied the allegations by stating that no legal point is involved in this writ petition.