Allahabad High Court
Kartik Pandey vs University Of Lucknow Thru. Vice ... on 2 August, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50963
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6537 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kartik Pandey
Respondent :- University Of Lucknow Thru. Vice Chancellor Lucknow University, U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay,Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Savitra Vardhan Singh
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 14.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby respondent no.3 placing reliance on an order dated 01.08.2022 has proceeded to rusticate the petitioner from the University.
3. The legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in an earlier round of litigation before this Court vide Writ-C No.5169 of 2022 in re: Kartik Pandey vs. University of Lucknow and others, this Court vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, had held that the order dated 01.08.2022 is liable to be quashed and thereafter directed that the petitioner shall have three weeks time to file reply to the inquiry report and the University was required to consider the same after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
4. Based on the aforesaid judgment, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that again the respondents have passed the order impugned dated 14.07.2023 placing reliance on the order dated 01.08.2022.
5. It is contended that though it is always open for the respondents to pass an order in the facts and circumstances of the case yet placing reliance on the order dated 01.08.2022, which already stand quashed by the judgment and order dated 06.08.2022, would itself reflect patent non-application of mind to the relevant facts of the case.
6. It is also stated that the examination of the petitioner is scheduled to be held on 09.08.2023.
7. On the other hand, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, states that the order impugned has been passed after considering the reply of the petitioner as well as the report of the Proctorial Board, which was approved by the Proctor and Dean Students Welfare and as such there is no infirmity in the order impugned. It is also contended that the order is appealable under Section 68 of the Universities Act before the Hon'ble Chancellor.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what emerges is that in the earlier round of litigation before this Court wherein an order dated 01.08.2022 rusticating the petitioner from the University was challenged, this Court vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2022 passed in Writ-C No.5169 of 2022 had held that the order was liable to be quashed with a liberty to the University to pass a fresh order. Thereafter this Court had provided that the petitioner shall have three weeks time to file reply to the inquiry report and the University was required to pass an order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. The petitioner claims to have submitted his reply on 26.08.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no.3 has passed an order impugned dated 14.07.2023 whereby placing reliance on the earlier order dated 01.08.2022, the petitioner has been rusticated from the University.
10. Once the order dated 01.08.2022 was held liable to be quashed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2022 consequently there was no occasion for the respondent no.3 to have again placed reliance on the said order dated 01.08.2022 rather it was in the fitness of things that after considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 should have proceeded to pass an order in accordance with law. When from the order impugned dated 14.07.2023, it emerges that the earlier order dated 01.08.2022 has been considered and relied upon consequently it cannot be said that there has been proper application of mind on the part of respondent no.3 while passing the order impugned.
11. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-University that the order impugned is appealable under Section 68 of the Universities Act, suffice to state that when from the order impugned itself patent non-application of mind is apparent consequently this Court does not deem it necessary to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal. Hence, the said argument is rejected.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the order impugned dated 14.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed. However, it would be open for respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the basis of material available with him.
13. Let such an order be passed within a shortest possible time, say within a period of five days from today particularly considering that the examination of the petitioner is scheduled to be held on 09.08.2023.
14. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, shall inform about this order to respondent no.3 today itself without waiting for a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 2.8.2023
A. Katiyar
