AMITABH GUPTA Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner passed his B.Sc. Examination from the Kurukshetra University in April, 1987 and Diploma in Computer Application in Aug., 1988. He thereafter joined the two years M.C.A. Degree Course in the Department of Computer Applications, Kurukshetra University, and completed 3 semesters securing 70%, 62% and 60% marks in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd semester examinations respectively. The 4th semester which the petitioner thereafter joined included project work and a viva-voce test. It appears that the relations between the petitioner and Dr. P.K. Suri, who was the Chairman of the Department, were somewhat strained, and a result thereof, the petitioner on 14th Jan., 1991, addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, which has been appended as Annexure P-2 to the petition, in which he expressed an apprehension that as Dr. Suri harboured a deep prejudice against him, he would cause his harm in the viva-voce test. The viva-voce examination of the petitioner was thereafter held on 27th Jan., 1991, and the petitioner who was waiting for the declaration of his result was instead served with a letter dated 27th Feb., 1991, Annexure P-3 to the petition, whereby he was informed that his result had been withheld pending enquiry into the complaint made by the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. The petitioner has impugned Annexure P-3 before me. It has been averred that the Vice Chancellor thereafter set up a committee to go into the allegation made by the petitioner and accordingly directed to appear before that committee to substantiate the charges. On the 20th March, 1991, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor informing him that he was no more interested in perusing the matter and, as such, it should be dropped. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to and an enquiry was duly held and completed. The report of the committee has been appended with the reply of the University as Annexure R-11 and the final recommendation was as given below:-

(2.) The action of the respondent-University in not declaring the result of the petitioner has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor had no authority to withhold the result and that in any case, the petitioner having expressed his regret for what he had done, required to be forgiven so that his brilliant academic career was not marred.

(3.) A reply has been fled on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the writ petition was premature inasmuch as that the final decision with regard to the fate of the petitioner was to be taken by the academic counsel/executive council and only a show-cause notice Annexure P-8 has been issued to him as to why matter should not be referred to that body. It has also been averred that the committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor found on facts that the petitioner had made serious and false allegations against Dr. Suri and was a habitual complaintant. On the question of jurisdiction, support has been sought from Statute 29 of the Kurukshetra University Calendar Volume-I 1989. The respondents have also put Annexure R-14 which is a note dated 7.12.1991 recorded by the Vice-Chancellor in which an additional stand has been taken that the action was justified in terms of Clause 4.1 of the Central Rules for Examination of the Kurukshetra University Vol.II 1991.