Mohd. Zareeq Khan and Others vs Jamia Millia Isalamia

Devinder Gupta, ACJ.

Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.12.1998 dismissing appellant writ petition is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal.

Pursuant to the disciplinary action taken against the appellants and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee, ViceChancellor of the respondent University expelled the appellants from University for one academic year. Simultaneously ban was imposed on them not to enter University Campus for the same duration. After expiry of the period the petitioners were expelled from University. The appellants sought readmission in Academic Session 199899 for the courses, which they had been undergoing, prior to the order of expulsion. They were denied readmission. This order of ViceChancellor was challenged in writ petition. The learned Single Judge relying upon the affidavit of the ViceChancellor and the powers conferred on the ViceChancellor in clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 of the University dismissed the writ petition.

Having considered the submission made at the bar and at the material, which was placed before the learned Single Judge, which has also been made a part of this appeal, we are of the view that no interference is called in the impugned judgment. Statute 31 quoted in the judgment vested all powers relating to discipline and disciplinary action in relation to students on the Vice-Chancellor, which also includes power not to admit a student to a course of courses of study in a Department or an Institution of University as candidate has no vested right for admission to a course in an Educational Institution and it cannot be disputed that under the powers vested in him the Vice-Chancellor on consideration of relevant factors can refuse admission to a candidate on valid grounds. Learned Single Judge concluded from the material placed before him and from the affidavit of Vice-Chancellor that the Vice-Chancellor had taken into consideration the relevant factors including the situation prevailing in the respondent University and that despite earnest efforts, it has not been possible to restore normalcy. It was with a view to prevent reoccurrence of violent and criminal acts and of the fact that the appellant had a tainted record of indiscipline, that their presence in the University was considered to be prejudicial and serious threat to the maintenance of discipline and peace in the campus.

In such like matters concerning denial of admission to students on the ground of maintenance of discipline in the campus, when the authority vested with power in that behalf takes a direction by reference to all relevant factors, it will not be permissible to a writ court to interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We agree with the view taken by a decision of Allahabad High Court in Ramesh Chandra Chaube Vs. Principal Bipin Behari Intermediate College, Jhansi, . A student had been denied readmission by the Head of the Institution in the interest of discipline. Such an action on the part of the Head of the Institution was found to be within his powers having been taken on due consideration of relevant factors and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

We may also refer to a few other decisions on the point where the authority competent to take decision, one due consideration of the past conduct of the student and the prevailing situation in the educational campus takes a decision declining admission to such a student, the Courts decline to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Such other decisions are Vikaruddin Vs. Osmotic University & Others AIR 1954 Hyd 25 ; Miss Zeenat Tej and Others Vs. The Principal of the Prince of Wales Medical College and Others, : Deva Singh Vs. Kurukshetrta University, Civil Misc. Writ No. 2955 of 1960, decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 15.10.1970 and reported as 1990 AIEC 299 and S. Goverdhan Vs. Rani Laxmi devamma College Arts, Commerce and Science, Wanaparthy, writ petition No. 5517 of 1982 decided on 29.10.1982 and reported as 1991 (2) AIEC 433.

As in the instant case the Vice Chancellor has taken decision in exercise of his powers on due consideration of relevant factors, the learned Single Judge was right in declining too interfere. Resultantly, we find no force in the appeal, which we hereby dismissed.