UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR Vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This Civil First Appeal of the defendants is directed against the judgement and decree dated 27-7-1985 of the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Srinagar, for the payment of Rs. 10,000/- as damaged and compensation to the plaintiff, who is respondent herein, with 5% interest thereon, from the date of the institution of the suit till its final decision.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are summarised as under :- As revealed from the plaint, the respondent plaintiff was a student of Islamia College of Science and Commerce, Srinagar and had appeared in the Pre-University course annual examination held by the University of Kashmir (appellant/defendant) in March, 1970, under Roll No. 1053. The result of the respondent was withheld by the University, allegedly, for use of unfair means in the examination, and after a long time a notification was issued on 20-11-1970 disqualifying him from passing any examination from the University for a period of two years, i.e. 1970 and 1971. The said notification came to be challenged in the High Court by medium of a writ petition, and vide its order dated 18th June, 1971, the same was quashed as violative of various provisions of the Statutes and Regulations of the University. Consequently, a fresh inquiry was held against the respondent which culminated in maintaining the previous punishment of disqualification for two years, i.e. 1970 and 1971 against him. The said notification bearing No. F-X(9) 71/CT was issued by the University on 17-4-1972. It has been alleged in the plaint that the delay made in conducting of inquiry or issuing the said Notification has made him to suffer dis-qualification for three years, instead of two years and he could not appear even in the examination of March, 1972. Allegedly, the arbitrary and revengeful action of the University has resulted in his mental, financial and physical agony, causing irreparable loss to him. He has, therefore, claimed Rs. 17,000/- as damages from the University.

(3.) In their written statement, the defendants have not disputed the factual allegations made in the plaint. They, however, contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the Notification was issued in time and the plaintiff did not suffer any loss, and, if any, that was due to his own inaction.