INDU SHARMA Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miss Indu Sharma, petitioner, joined Ph. D. course in Himachal Pradesh University, Agricultural Complex (now Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya), Solan, in November, 1976. She had joined M.Sc, (Agriculture) after obtaining her B.Sc. (pass) degree. Allegations were made against her that she had obtained admission in M.Sc. course by misrepresenting that she had obtained first division in her B.Sc. examination. A fact finding body, called Enquiry Committee, was constituted by the University. It consisted of Dr. H. R. Kalia (respondent No. 2) and Dr. D. R. Thakur (respondent No. 3). Both these respondents were Associate Deans of the Himachal Pradesh University, Agricultural Complex, Palampur. Dr. Ram Gopal was the Chairman of this Enquiry Committee. He wrote a letter (Annexure PA) dated 15th September. 1977 to the petitioner asking her to produce her "B.Sc. degree and detailed marks certificate in original before the Enquiry Committee latest by 1.00 P.M. on 17 -9 -77 (Saturday) positively." The petitioner refused to produce the documents asked for on the ground that she had produced all of them before the Selection Board at the time of her admission to M.Sc. course. It was further stated by her that this Selection Board was headed by Dean of the Agricultural Complex and "membered by Associate Deans of both the complexes and all the Heads of Departments." Thereafter the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 24th December, 1977 cancelled the admission of the petitioner to Ph. D. course and debarred her from taking admission to this course for a period of two years. The petitioner appealed to the Vice Chancellor of the University against this decision. The father of the petitioner also wrote to the Associate Dean of the College of Agriculture requesting him to show the documents supporting the allegations of misrepresentation made by his daughter. The Secretary to the Vice Chancellor wrote a letter (Annexure PF) dated 3rd February, 1978 stating "that since the case has already been decided in favour of your daughter, Miss Indu Sharma, the matter may, please be treated as closed." The Controller of the examination of the University wrote to the Dean Agricultural Complex on March 4, 1978 (Annexure ˜PG) informing the latter "that the Vice Chancellor, in exercising of powers vested in him under statute 2(5) of the First Statute of H. P. University as amended from time to time, has been pleased to order that Miss Indu Sharma be allowed to continue as a Ph. D. student." A copy of this letter was sent to the petitioner. Thereafter Dr. D. R. Thakur, respondent No. 3, wrote to the Professor and Head, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Solan, on 29th March, 1978 stating that the executive Council in its meeting held on March 18, 1978 has decided the implementation of the decision taken by it in the case of Miss Indu Sharma and that the matter was being reviewed by the Dean Agricultural Complex, as directed by the Executive Council (Annexure PH). By office order dated 24th April 1978, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the Controller of Examinations of the University has informed him that the decision taken by the Executive Council in its meeting held on December 4, 1977 to cancel the admission of the petitioner for the Ph. D. course and to debar her taking admission in that course for a period of two years, stands.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the decision of the University cancelling her admission to Ph. D. course. It is alleged that the action by the respondents is mala fide. The grounds of mala fide are that the petitioners brother Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, who was at that time part time correspondent of various newspapers, had exposed the activities of respondents No. 2 and 3. Both of them were stated to be against the then Vice Chancellor Dr. B. S, Jogi. "Respondent No. 2 in fact challenged the appointment of Dr. Jogi in the past and respondent No. 3 in collusion with some other college authorities were instrumental in physical attack in July, 1977 on Dr. B.S. Jogi. It was further averred that despite the Vice Chancellors decision to accept the appeal against the decision of the Executive Council cancelling her admission, the respondents still cancelled her admission. It was also alleged that in fact the Executive Council did not direct the Dean, Agricultural Complex to review the case.

(3.) The return filed by the University is supported by affidavits filed by Dr. H. R. Kalia as well as Dr. D. R. Thakur. I find that both the respondents have net stated anything about the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner in para 12 of the petition. In answer to this para the respondents have stated thus: "Para 12 is denied. The contention of the petitioner is based on false presumption and concocted conviction not borne out by facts and hence the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 and 3 are baseless. The cryptic affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 annexed to the return state: "The contents of para 1 to 13 and 15 to 17 of the reply are true to the information derived from the official record and believed to be correct." Now the allegation of mala fides which was made by the petitioner against these two respondents was personal to them. They should have met the allegation and answered it from their own knowledge It was not a question of deriving information from record. It could not be on the record that Dr. D.R. Thakur, respondent No. 3, was instrumental in physical attack on the then Vice Chancellor in July 1977. They should have further specifically admitted or denied whether facts were exposed in the newspapers as mentioned in para 12 of the petition. Since both the respondents have failed to deny the allegations I have to accept them as correct.