IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 12.07.2011
W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011
Mr. Ashraf Kamal ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alamgir counsel for petitioner.
Vs.
Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. ......Respondents
Through: Mr.M.A.Siddiqui for the respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral:
*
1. The petitioner has approached this court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 1 of 10 of the Constitution of India to seek quashing of the notice dated 12.10.2010 and the note dated 12.10.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby a complete ban was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought directions to direct the respondents to forthwith forward his candidature for registration in Ph.D. Programme for Dalit and Minorities Studies.
2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are that the petitioner is a student of the respondent no.1 university since class IX and finished his Masters degree in 2008 after which he applied for Ph.D programme sponsored by Dr.K.R Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies on the topic "Political Empowerment of Muslims-A comparative study of two select Districts in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar". The petitioner was called for the interview for the said course and was recommended by the Board of Studies for the Ph.d but his admission has been kept in abeyance till date. On making various inquires and filing RTI application, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the application of the petitioner has been kept pending by W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 2 of 10 respondent no.3 due to a case of indiscipline against the petitioner in 2005, of which a warning letter was issued to him on 19.7.2005. Further on a note dated 12.10.10 was issued by respondent no.3 whereby it was stated that the petitioner had involved himself in acts of indiscipline on the University Campus on 18.7.2005 and 18.7.2006 and recently he has been seen in the campus parking his black colour car inside the campus at no parking area and it is feared that the presence of the petitioner in the campus may cause law and order problem and thus a campus ban was imposed upon him vide notice dated 12.10.10. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the said action of the respondent no.3 and has thus approached this court for relief.
3. On the last date of hearing, the respondent was directed to produce the relevant record whereby the decision taken by the Competent Authority of the respondent University to ban the entry of the petitioner in the campus of the respondent University.
W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 3 of 10
4. Today, Mr.Arshad Noor, Dy. Proctor has produced the original documents. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner was issued a warning by the then Proctor Professor Ibrahim vide letter dated 19.7.2005. The said warning was issued by the Proctor to the petitioner on the ground that he was found involved in unlawful activities of trying to disturb the reading room of Dr. Zakir Hussain Library by closing the gate of the library and then raising slogans outside the library on 18.7.2005 at 11.00 A.M. and due to such unjustified behaviour of the petitioner, he was warned to refrain himself from committing such condemnable activities failing which he was warned that strict action will be taken against him which may include suspension, ban in campus and even rustication. The said file also contains another note of 12.10.2010 issued by Professor Masood Alam, Proctor of the respondent University as recently the petitioner was seen in the campus in a black colour car in no parking zone of the campus and therefore it was feared that the presence of the W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 4 of 10 petitioner may create law and order problem in the campus and thus a campus ban was imposed upon him due to the same.
5. The case set out by the petitioner in the present petition is that he was a brilliant student throughout his career and has successfully completed various courses as detailed by him in sub-para 1 of para 3 of the petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has completed his Masters' degree from the respondent university itself in the year 2008 in the stream of Dalit & Minorities Studies and in the year 2008 the petitioner had applied for admission in the Ph.D. Programme duly sponsored by Dr. K.R. Narayanan Centre on the topic "Political Empowerment of Muslims - A Comparative Study of two select Districts in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar" which application of the petitioner is required to be routed through the respondent no.3, Proctor of University with its recommendations for the registration to the said Centre. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was interviewed by the Board of Studies and was declared successful by the said Board and thereafter his name was W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 5 of 10 recommended by the Board for the aforementioned Ph.D. Programme. The grievance raised in the petition is that case of the petitioner to seek admission in the Ph.D. Course is not being recommended by the respondent no.3 on the premise that in the past the petitioner was found involved in unlawful activities and for which a warning was issued by the Proctor of the respondent University vide letter dated 19.7.2005 and also because of the recent misconduct of the petitioner in parking his black colour car in no parking zone. It is the case of the petitioner that he is unnecessarily being victimized at the hands of the respondent no.3 , the Proctor of the respondent University as he has malafide intent so as to spoil the academic career of the petitioner as the brother of the respondent no.3 is settling the score with the petitioner through respondent no.3. It is also the case of the petitioner that before passing the said banning order the respondent has blatantly violated the principles of natural justice.
W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 6 of 10
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original documents produced by the counsel for the respondent.
7. A warning letter was issued to the petitioner by the respondent University as long back as 19.7.2005 on account of his alleged involvement in the act of disturbing the reading room of Dr. Zakir Hussain library. In the said warning letter the petitioner was warned that if he indulges himself in such like misbehaviour again then strict action would be initiated against him which could include suspension, campus ban or even rustication. Except the said warning letter, no other order was passed by the respondent University against the petitioner except the recent banning order passed by the respondent vide note dated 12.10.2010. The said note clearly shows that the reason for putting a ban on the petitioner is due to his parking the car inside the campus at no parking zone. In the said note the Proctor also expressed his apprehension that the presence of the petitioner in the campus may cause law and order problem.
W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 7 of 10
8. The act of the respondent no.3 is completely beyond the comprehension of this court as it is an absolutely draconian decision taken by the respondent no.3 to ban the entry of the petitioner in the campus of the respondent University where he has been a student for the last so many years. The petitioner has completed his post graduation in the year 2008 which would clearly mean that he was allowed to carry on with his studies of post graduation course even after the said initial warning letter was issued by the respondent against the petitioner in the year 2005. This court fails to perceive as how parking of the car by the petitioner in no parking zone can result in taking such a harsh decision by the respondent University putting a complete ban on the petitioner to enter the campus and that too for an indefinite period. This court also fails to fathom as to how the presence of the petitioner in the campus of the respondent will result in creating law and order problem.
9. Admittedly, no show cause notice has been served by the respondent University upon the petitioner before taking W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 8 of 10 the action of banning the petitioner. The respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case and has clearly acted in contravention of rules of natural justice. Rules of natural justice are not some arcane law but are very much a part of the conscience of the justice dispensation system of our country and cannot be given a go by in any eventuality. Not going into the merit of the allegation of the petitioner of attributing malfide to respondent no.3, this court would only like to observe that the teachers are revered as Gods in our culture and are responsible for shaping the lives of their students, and the sanctity and the status of this position should be maintained.
10. In the light of the forgoing, the impugned notice dated 12.10.2010 and the note dated 12.10.10 is quashed. The respondent university is accordingly directed to forward the case of the petitioner for his registration for Ph.D. Programme for Dalit and Minorities Studies, if otherwise the petitioner fulfills the laid down criteria.
W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 9 of 10
11. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly in the aforementioned terms.
July 12, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
mg
W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011 Page 10 of 10