DEVA SINGH Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVA Singh petitioner seeks a direction from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution annulling the communication of respondent No. 2, who is the Head of the Department of Economics in the first respondent University, dated August 31, 1970 (Annexure 'a' tot he writ petition ). Whereby the petitioner was informed that this provisional admission to the M. A. Economics Course could not be made regular and the petitioner could, therefore, apply for the refund of the fees deposited by him. The facts leading to the filing of this petition which are gathered from the various affidavits are gathered from the various affidavits filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent may first be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner was a B. Sc. (Honours) student in the Kurukshetra University, but could not take that examination in April, 1967, as he ran short of the minimum number of lectures entitling him to appear in the examination. In a situation like this, the relevant regulations of the University permitted him to join, as a casual student, the three terms of the next session, i. e. , July to September , October to December, 1967,, and January to April , 1968. He joined and completed his courses in the first two terms ending on December 31, 1967. Before he could join January to April, 1968, term (the third term), there was a strike in the University in January, 1968. It is alleged that the petitioner took part in the activities of the strikers which had become violent. The question of taking disciplinary action against the students who were alleged to have turned violent was taken up, and decided by the Academic Council of the University on January 11, 1968. A copy of the relevant extract from the proceedings of the abovementioned meeting of the Academic Council has been placed on the record of this case as annexure to the affidavit of respondent No. 2, dated September 28, 1970. Those minutes of the Council's meeting read as follows:-

(3.) THOUGH the parties have raked up some controversy in their pleadings about the petitioner having made attempts to secure admission in some other University, and about his having failed to succeed in such efforts on account of the time for admission in those Universities having expired, those matters do not appear to be relevant for deciding the points in controversy in the present petition. The fact remains that on August 13, 1970, the petitioner submitted his application form in duplicate for admission to the M. A. in Economics Course of the respondent-University. Once again, it is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed all the requisite academic qualifications for admission to the M. A. course in Economics. On August 14, 1970, the Head of the Department provisionally admitted the petitioner though he states that he was reluctant to allow him admission at that stage. The circumstances in which he made the order of provisional admission of the petitioner have been explained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of the Head of the Department, dated September 28, 1970, in the following words. " when the petitioner appeared before the deponent for admission to the M. A. Economics course on the 14th of August, 1970, the deponent told the petitioner that he had an impression that there was something against the petitioner's antecedents while he was a student of B. Sc (Hons.) Physics in this University, and the deponent was, therefore, rather reluctant to admit him unless he had got the position confirmed. the petitioner pleaded that, in keeping with the practice in such and similar cases in this University, he might be admitted provisionally, pending investigation and finalisation of his case, especially as the 14th August was the last working day until which the petitioner could have been admitted under the orders of the deponent. The deponent then agreed to the petitioner's request and admitted him provisionally. The deponent recorded his orders 'admit provisionally', on the petitioners admission form, in duplicate, retained one copy for his office, and handed the other copy (meant for the Fee Section) over to the petitioner to enable him to deposit his fees. It is absolutely wrong for the petitioner to suggest that the deponent had not recorded his orders 'admit provisionally' on the petitioner's admission form before it was handed over to him for depositing his fees. " The second respondent thereafter spoke to the Registrar of the University on the same day and wrote to the Registrar on August 17, 1970, as below: "you would kindly recall my conversation with you on the 14th August regarding the admission of Shri Deva Singh to the M. A. Economics course. I have admitted him provisionally. Perhaps you will kindly ascertain from your office or the Proctor whether there is nothing against the boy for the purposes of his admission. The Proctors communication dated July 8, 1970, does not contain his name. Perhaps you will also kindly bring the matter to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor. I am enclosing Deva Singh's application for admission. " The Vice-Chancellor called for a report about the petitioner's case from the Proctor. The new Proctor (Mr. J. L. Gupta has stated that the old Proctor had, in the meantime, been succeeded by the new one) looked up the relevant record and submitted the following report: "looking up the Proctor's file I find that Mr. Deva Singh, a student of B. Sc. (Hons.) Physics III in 1968, was expelled by the then Vice-Chancellor, Mr. D. C. Verma, on the recommendation of the Board of Residence, Health and Discipline. The charges against him were 'grave misconduct, damaging University property, indulging in discipline, and inciting other students to acts of violence. ' The order of expulsion against Mr. Deva Singh on January 31, 1968. No reason was given for the reversal of the earlier order," When it was found from the abovementioned investigation that the petitioner had been held at one time to be guilty of grave misconduct, of damaging University property, and of having indulged in indiscipline and inciting other students to acts of violence, the matter was reported to the Academic Council which is the final authority in respect of discipline under Section 12 of the Kurukshetra University Act (hereinafter called the Act ). It was in the abovementioned circumstances that the Academic Council passed the impugned order on August 29, 1979 in the following words: "shri Deva Singh took an active part when during the strike of 1968 the residence of the Vice-Chancellor was attacked and some records from the Registrar's office were set fire to. He was expelled. Although, the expulsion order was withdrawn by the Vice-Chancellor, obviously under pressure, Shri Deva Singh was not exonerated. He cannot be admitted. His provisional admission is cancelled. " It was in compliance with the above-quoted order that respondent No. 2 issued letter Annexure 'a' to the petitioner, This writ petition was then filed on September 15, After perusing the original written statement of the University (the affidavit of its Registrar), the petition was admitted on September 16, 1970, but in view of th order directing its immediate hearing, no interim relief was granted to the petitioner