Ankit Thakur v. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies & Ors.

com petent authority under Rule 6.1.3 of the First Statute 4 of the University form ulated under Section 28(1) of the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Act, 20 0 3. It has further been stated that the petitioner was a student of 1st semester and had merely com pleted a few months in the University at the tim e of com m ission of alleged offence, therefore retention/ re-adm ission petitioner, as claim ed by him, will be a serious im pact on the m oral and discipline of the University which has about 40 0 0 students working in a close environment. It is further subm itted that the loss sustained by the petitioner is the result of his own doing and no illegality and arbitrariness is m ade out on the part of the respondent. It has further been subm itted that neither the petitioner entitled for adm ission in 2nd sem ester, as asked for, nor he is entitled to get the result of 1st semester declared. Mere depositing the fees for 2nd sem ester, does not m ake him entitlem ent of any relief, however the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the sam e from the University. It is further stated that the letter dated 30 .0 4.20 0 9 was issued due to inadvertence and oversight of the Departm ent concerned, therefore mere issuance of said letter the petitioner does not entitle for any relief as on 30 .0 4.20 0 9, the petitioner was not on the rolls of the University. Since, petitioner’s nam e was struck off w.e.f. 27.0 2.20 0 9, there was no occasion for the petitioner to m ove any representation at the later point of tim e. The petitioner with the m alafide intentions tried to com pare him with another student- Am it, against whom a m inor crim inal case was there and who was subsequently acquitted by the Court. It is lastly stated that Rule 11 of the Act and its clauses applies only in relation to m isconduct with the class room, within the University Cam pus relating to the students, faculties and em ployees of the University only. These cannot be 5 stretched to the act of m urder that too of an outsider. Rule 12 of the Act follows Rule 11, which is a right of appeal which can be availed by a student awarded a penalty. In these circum stances, the petitioner, as per his own case, has got an efficacious rem edy of availing rem edy of appeal.

#4. I have heard Mrs. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

#5. Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for petitioner has assailed the im pugned order m ainly on the ground that the petitioner’s name was struck off from the roll of the University on the basis m erely that the petitioner rem ained in jail in connection with the case crim e no. 97/ 20 0 8 under Section 30 2 and 120 -B I.P.C. She subm itted that there are several other students in the University against whom crim inal cases are registered but they are continuing their studies while the petitioner has been discrim inated and has been deprived of to continue his studies. She further subm itted that on one hand the respondent University is receiving the payment of 2nd semester but on the other the petitioner is not being perm itted to continue his studies of 2nd sem ester even after receiving the fees. Referring Section 19 of the J uvenile J ustice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 20 0 0 , learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the order dated 29.0 4.20 10 passed by the learned Sessions J udge, Dehradun whereby the petitioner has been declared to be a juvenile on the date of alleged comm ission of crim e and contended that the 6 petitioner shall not suffer disqualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred clause-(ii) of Rule 11 of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Act, 20 0 3 and subm itted that Rule 11 stands for procedures for enquiry and punishm ent and clause (ii) of this Section specifically stated that the guilty student shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Com m ittee for cross exam ination and interrogation but in the present case, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing and he has not been asked to appear before the Com m ittee for cross exam ination and interrogation. Lastly she argued that in the prevailing circum stances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of for continuing his studies of B.Tech A.S.E. in the 2nd semester of the University and his nam e has wrongly been struck off from the roll of the University vide im pugned order dated 27.0 2.20 0 9, therefore the same is liable to be quashed.

#6. Rebutting the argum ents advanced by the counsel the petitioner, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate has subm itted that petitioner’s name has been struck off from the roll of the University on 27.0 2.20 0 9 and the writ petition was filed in the m onth of March, 20 10 , when alm ost two semesters have passed. Initially the petitioner does not pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.0 2.20 0 9, but the prayer was amended in the m onth of May, 20 10 , therefore the writ petition is not m aintainable. He further subm itted that Rule 11 (ii) of the Act will not apply in the m atter rather Rule 12 follows Rule 11, which is a right to appeal which can be availed by a student awarded a penalty. He further subm itted that Rule 6.1.3 of the First Statute of the University of Petroleum and Energy studies form ulated under Section 7 28 (1) of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Act, 20 0 3 shall be applicable in the case. Rule 6.1.3 of the Act is reproduced as below:- powers relating “R u le 6 .1.3 :- Without prejudice generality of m aintenance of discipline and taking such action in the interest of m aintaining discipline as may seem to him appropriate, the Vice Chancellor m ay, in the exercise of his powers aforesaid order to direct that any student be expelled from the University, or be fined a sum of Rupees (that m ay be specified), or be debarred from taking an exam ination or exam inations for one or m ore years or that the results of student or students concerned in the exam ination or exam inations, in which he has or they have appeared, be cancelled.”

#7. Learned counsel for the respondent then argued that neither the petitioner challenged the order im pugned nor he challenged the vires of the Act. The petitioner also did not m ention Rule 12 of the Act which stipulates right to appeal. He submitted that adm ittedly the petitioner has not filed any appeal or revision against the im pugned order dated 27.0 2.20 0 9 by which his name was struck off from the roll of the University and in view of this fact, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He further subm itted that the respondent University has not com m itted any illegality in passing the order im pugned.

#8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the First Statute of the University, it is clear that the University has fram ed Rule

6.1.3 of the Act, 20 0 3 which relates to m aintenance of discipline and in order to m aintain discipline, the Vice Chancellor, in the exercise of his powers conferred under the Rule 6.1.3, can expel a student from the University, im pose fine, debar from taking an exam ination for one or 8 m ore years or can cancel the result of a student in the exam ination, in which he has appeared. Although the petitioner is on bail, but the University has to maintain harm ony and peaceful environm ent in the University Cam pus. The name of the petitioner has been struck off from the roll of the University after the approval of the com petent authority. Educational Institutions supposed to m aintain discipline in the Institutions. Order for striking off the nam e of the petitioner from the roll of the University was done for m aintaining discipline in the Institution. Further, the alleged crim inal case has yet not been decided, therefore, the petitioner cannot compare him with another student who has finally been acquitted. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be given benefit of Section 19 of the J uvenile J ustice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 20 0 0 . This petition was filed after a period of one year. There is no explanation for the delay and laches in filing the petition. The petition deserves to be rejected on this ground also. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned.

#9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dism issed. However, the petitioner can withdraw his fees, deposited by him for the 2nd sem ester in the University. 10 . No order as to costs. NCM: ( V.K. Bis t , J .) 0 6.0 7.20 10