GIAN CHAND SAINI Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was admitted to B A. Part-I class at the Kurukshetra University College, Kurukshetra in July/August 1991. On September 7, 1993, the Kurukshetra University informed the college that "while checking the eligibility of the candidate from the certificate of Intermediate Examination stated to have (sic) passed from Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, some doubt had arisen. The case was therefore referred to Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna and the Statistical Officer, Bihar Intermediate: Education Council, Patna has confirmed vide their letter No. 214/St./93/Record dated 4.8.1993 (photo copy enclosed) that the result is INCORRECT." In pursuance of tliis information from the Council, the Vice-Chance Nor ordered that the candidature and the result, if any, declared may be cancelled forthwith. It was further directed that the Principal of the College should lodge an F.I.R. with the local police against the candidate for producing the incorrect/bogus certificate in an attempt to cheat the College/Universicy. Mr. S.C. Sibal, learned Counsel for the University has shown the original file and produced a photo copy of this letter. It is taken on record as Mark 'A'. In pursuance to this communication, the college cancelled the petitioner's admission. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The order has been challenged primarily on the ground that no opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner before ordering the cancellation of his admission.

(2.) A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Registrar of the Kurukshetra University. It has been inter-alia pointed out that the University had doubts about the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner. Consequently, it had sought a clarification from the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. Vide letter dated August 4, 1993, the Council had informed that the certificate produced by the petitioner was incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order was passed. Thereupon, the petitioner produced three more certificates. The genuineness of even these certificates is doubtful, various discrepancies have been pointed out in the certificates. On these premises, the University contests the petitioner's claim.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a replication reiterating his claim in the writ ])etition.