Irfan Hayat vs Jamia Millia Islamia
1999 Latest Caselaw 788 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner applied for PGDCA Course and MA Economics. He also applied for M.A.(Pol.Science). But ultimately, he was denied admission. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

   "In the premises above, it is most humbly prayed that this    Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass the following orders/direc-   tions to: 
 

   1) summon the necessary records pertaining to the petitioner's    case for interim relief prayed and for the final disposal of the    case. 
 

   2) lay the procedure for reply on representations made and decla-   ration of the result with relevant remarks from Committee on    Examinations."   

2.  The stand taken in the counter filed by the Vice-Chancellor is that the petitioner is a person likely to create unrest in the campus and he is not a who could be admitted and if he is admitted, rest of the students, nearly 7,000, would be affected. It is stated in the counter:      "I respectfully, humbly and with all humility submit all actions    of the deponent as the principal executive and academic officer    of the respondent University have since been aimed and focussed    at putting the University back on its rails, restoring disci-   pline, inculcating respect for and spirit of due observance of    rules, improving academic and administrative functioning of the    University by appropriate review and revision of Ordinances,    rules and regulations and endeavouring to instil a spirit of    pride in genuine pursuit and imparting of academic knowledge and    improvement of academic standards."
  

3.  The deponent of the counter-affidavit would state that he had taken steps to ascertain the position from various sections of the persons in the campus. He would state: 
     "To start with, the deponent invited and interacted with various    groups of academic and administrative staff and students to    analyse the chaotic situation and bring about a semblance of law    and order on the Campus. I found on free and frank discussions    that the majority of staff and students were not only willing but    even keen to extend co-operation for restoring the academic    functioning of the University. Many of the misguided were open to    pursuasion and came to realise that it was in their own interest    to stand and succeed on their own merit. It was indeed some anti-   social and undesirable elements both from within and outside the    University who were inciting, misguiding and even intimidating    others to participate in protests/strikes. It became necessary,    in order to restore and maintain a conducive academic environ-   ment, to take strict action against those who indulged in or    incited violence and indiscipline."
  

4.  The present situation, according to the deponent, is not very much encouraging. It is stated in the counter:      "At that point of time, the University administration headed by    the Vice-Chancellor believed that by the commencement of the    academic session 1998-99 the situation and environment on the    Campus may improve. However, it transpires that even at this    point of time there prevails a fragile environment of law and    order. Sinister efforts continue to be deliberately made by land    mafia and anti-social elements who stand to gain and thrive on    disturbed environment by provoking students to raise unwarranted    demands and undermining peace and discipline. Instances of unde-   sirable elements to seeking incite students by creating ugly    scenes and raising abusive and fiery slogans on emotive and    delicate issues ar not infrequent. A recent instance is that of    ugly scenes created and explosive slogans raised during visit to    the Campus of the former President of India Shankar Dayal Sharma.    Explosive speeches and slogans at a recent gathering loaded with    abuses and threats on emotive issues have been partly tape -    recorded by the University administration. Extra care has necessarily to be taken at this delicate juncture to ensure that the    delicate peace returned continues without interference or disrup-   tion. It is imperative in order to ensure stability that the    safeguard of keeping out those with tainted record be maintained    for the time being. Keeping these imperatives in view, the Uni-   versity administration headed by the deponent decided not to    admit/readmit those with tainted record of indiscipline. The    petitioner, who is given to inciting students on emotive issues    and pressurising the University authorities to make uncalled for    concessions, falls in this category. The decision is purely by    way of a preventive measure to maintain discipline and safeguard    academic careers of thousands of continuing students and not a    punitive measure."
  

5.  Reliance is placed on Stature 31 of the Statutes of the University, which empowers the University to deny admission in discretion. It is stated in the counter:      "I respectfully reiterate that the decision not to grant admission/readmission to those with tainted record of indiscipline is    applicable and has been applied generally to such students as a    preventive measure in the wider interests of the University as a    whole and the thousands of continuing existing students in par-   ticular. The same should not be viewed as or considered to be by    way of disciplinary action in any individual case(s).
  

6.  Referring to the case of the petitioner, it is stated in the counter:     

   "The petitioner in the present writ petition who is former Secretary of the Students Union of the respondent University. He has a    tendency of inciting students on delicate emotive issues. At    around 11 a.m. on 7.7.97, the petitioner led a hostile mob of    students shouting indecent slogans, abuses and inciting them    against the Jamia authorities and paraded through the Campus    creating an ugly and disruptive situation. In addition, the    petitioner vide letter dated 7.7.97 addressed to the deponent    demanding postponement of the Annual Examination till after    commencement of the Monsoon session of Parliament coupled with a    threat of disruption if this was not acceded to." 
 

   True copy of letter dated 7.7.97 is annexed hereto and marked as    Annexure R-1. 
 

   The petitioner was suspended from the Rolls of the University    vide Office Order dated 8.7.97. This fact has been deliberately    suppressed and withheld by the petitioner from this Hon'ble    Court. However, subsequently considering the unconditional apolo-   gy tendered by the petitioner before the Discipline Committee and    the fact that he only had to appear in the B.A. final year Exami-   nation, the suspension order was revoked. True copies of suspen-   sion order dated 8.7.97 as also order to revocation dated 10.7.97    are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3    respectively." 
  

7.  From the counter, it is clear that in the larger interest of the institution and a huge number of students studying in the institution, it was decided not to admit students whose past record would show their propensity to resort to violence. 
 

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Syed Kamran Razvi, submit- ted that the petitioner has been doing very well in his studies and he wants to pursue his studies only in the respondent University, and having allowed the petitioner to participate in the examination, the respondent was not justified in denying admission to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that no doubt some action was taken against the petition- er and he tendered unconditional apology, and the suspension order passed against him had been revoked, and the learned counsel would refer to office order dated 10.7.1997, wherein it is stated:

"A notice dated 8.7.1997 was served on Mr.Irfan Hayat, Secretary, Students' Union, Jamia Millia Islamia wherein it was stated that he led a hostile mob and shouting indecent slogans, abuses against the Jamia authorities at around 11.00 a.m. on 7.7.1997. In addition he was also charged of writing an insolent letter dated 7.7.1997. The said letter written by the students charged with the offence of insolent correspondence. He was given show cause notice for explanation for having violated the Jamia Bye- laws XXII (read Statue 31).

AND WHEREAS the student charged with the offence appeared before the Discipline Committee on 9.7.1997 and highly regretted his conduct as also acts of indiscipline which he perpetuated in violation of the Jamia Millia Islamia Bye-Laws. He tendered an unconditional apology before the Committee orally as also in writing.

On the recommendation of Discipline Committee the Vice-Chancellor accepted the unconditional apology and assurance of good behaviour and revoked the suspension order dated 8.7.1997 of Irfan Hayat with immediate effect."

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Syed Kamran Razvi, stated that for the academic year 1997-98 he applied for admission into a diploma course and he was selected without any objection but he did not join. When that is so, the respondent cannot resist the order which had become final on the 10th of July, 1997 and project the same against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been discriminated against and the action of the respondent is illegal and void.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. B.B. Sawhney, submitted that as stated in the counter, the respondent had taken into account all aspects of the matter and having regard to the past conduct of the peti- tioner, the respondent did not think it fit to admit the petitioner and the power was exercised under Statute 31 of the Statute of the University.

11. Mr. B.B. Sawhney, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on judgment of this Court in "Mohd. Zareeq Khan & Others Vs. Jamia Millia Isalamia", 1999 III AD (Delhi) 498. Therein a Division Bench of this Court held:

ch 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 re-admission 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 jurisdic- tion. Such other decisions are Vikruddin Vs. Osmanic University & Others, AIR 1954 Hyderabad 25; Miss Zeenat Taj and Others Vs. ThOsmanic e Principal of the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna & Others, ; Deva Singh Vs. Kurukshetra 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 Laxmidevamma College Arts, Commerce and Science, Wana- parthy, writ petition No.5517 of 1982 decided on 29.10.1982 and reported as [1950-91 (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."

12. Mr. Syed Kamran Razvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submit- ted that the decision rendered by the Division Bench is distinguishable on facts and there is no application to the facts of the petitioner.

13. The fact that the petitioner was found guilt of some act and discipli- nary action was taken against him is not disputed. The fact that he ten- dered unconditional apology and his order of suspension was revoked and at that time, he was in the third and final year of BA Degree course and on his tendering unconditional apology, he was permitted to complete the degree course, is also not disputed.

14. Clauses (1) and (3) of the Statute 31 of the University reads as under:-

31. MAINTENANCE OF DISCIPLINE AMONG STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY;

   (1) All powers relating to discipline and disciplinary action in    relation to students shall vests in the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-   Chancellor). 
 

   (2) Without prejudice to the generality of his power relating to    the maintenance of discipline and taking such action in the    interest of maintaining discipline as may seem to him appropri-   ate, the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor) may, in the exercise    of his powers, by order, direct that any student or students be    expelled or rusticated, for a specified period, or be not admit-   ted to a course or courses of study in a Department or an Insti-   tution of the University for a stated period, or be punished with    fine for an amount to be specified in the order, or be debarred    from taking an examination or examinations conducted by the    University or a Department or an Institution for one or more    years, or that the results of the student or students concerned    in the examination or examinations in which he or they have    appeared be cancelled." 
  

15. The respondent had acted in the interest of the institution and having regard to the facts and circumstances I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or irrationality or unreasonableness in the act of the respondents denying admission to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

16. There shall be no order as to costs.

class="centerAlign">