MONEET GOYAL Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated January 11, 1994, by which his admission to M.Sc. Part-II at the Punjabi University, Patiala, was cancelled. A copy each of the two orders conveyed to the petitioner in this behalf is at Annexures P-6 and P-7.

(2.) The primary grievance made by the learned counsel for me petitioner is mat me impugned orders were passed without affording any opportunity whatsoever to me petitioner. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents does not contest this factual statement. He, however, submits that the petitioner had not qualified B.Sc. Part-I examination and was thus not eligible to be admitted to any further course of studies.

(3.) It is me admitted position that the petitioner had not only been awarded the B.Sc. Degree but had even passed the M.Sc. Part-I examination and had been promoted to the M.Sc. Part-II before the issue of the impugned orders. The cancellation of the admission after the petitioner had deposited the requisite amount of fee etc. and had studied for a major part of the year affected his future career adversely. Such an order could not have been passed except after the grant of due and reasonable opportunity. Admittedly, none was granted. In such a situation, the action of the respondents is apparently violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. If, for any reason, the respondents thought that the petitioner had wrongly studied in B.Sc. Part II or B.Sc. Part III and had been wrongly awarded the degree or that his admission to M.Sc. Part-II suffered from some infirmity, it was incumbent on them to give the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the intended action. After that, the respondents should have held such an enquiry to establish facts, as would have been warranted by the facts end circumstances of the case. In the present case, the impugned orders were passed even without giving the petitioner a mere chance to explain his position. Such a course of action was wholly unfair. In fact, it was have jeopardised the petitioner's future career who, as pointed out by the counsel, had already been selected for admission to the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun.