Saghir Ahmad And Anr. vs Jamia Millia Islamia University
2002 Latest Caselaw 1283 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the decision of the Controller of Examination, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi cancelling the permission given to them to appear in the examination B.A.(Hons) Sociology, Part-I.

Petitioners had been permitted to take the examination as private students and had already appeared in two papers.

2. Petitioners assail the order/notice dated 22.4.2002, cancelling the permission to appear as private students. It is claimed that their application forms had been duly processed and after scrutiny, they were issued admit cards for the, examination. 'Petitioners claimed to have completed all formalities. Petitioners submit that the decision denying them permission to appear in the remaining and to cancel the papers in which they had appeared had distressed and shocked them. No action had been taken on the mercy appeals made by the petitioners. The cancellation had been effected without giving an opportunity of hearing and in complete disregard to their future.

3. Petitioners also claim to have excelled in sports. The permission given to appear as private candidates was intended to enable them to continue their studies. The University authorities ignored that they had already suffered on account of their rustication and if they were not allowed to study, their future would be irretrievably damaged, leaving them no option but to become criminals. It may be noted that the petitioners had also been granted anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 307 IPC.

4. When the matter came up for admission on 30th April, 2002, Mr. B.B. Sawhney counsel for the respondents had sought time to obtain instructions. On 2nd May, 2002, respondent's counsel informed the Court that the petitioners had been rusticated and expelled on the basis of a case registered under Section 307 IPC against them. Learned counsel pointed out that while seeking permission to appear as private candidates in the examination for the year 2002, the petitioners signed a false declaration to the following effect.

"I declare that I have not been debarred by any University or Board from taking any examination during the above mentioned year and that the entries made by me on the forms A and B (attached) are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

This declaration was false to the knowledge of the petitioners, who had been rusticated on account of the case under Section 307 IPC registered against them.

5. Petitioners made the false declaration based on which they secured permission to appear as private students. Later on during the course of scrutiny it was discovered that the petitioners by false declaration had obtained permission to appear as private candidates, without disclosing the factum of their rustication.

6. The petitioners though being fully aware of the false declaration made by them and the reasons for cancellation of permission to appear in the examination, filed this writ petition. The petition proceeds on the basis that permission which was given after due consideration and scrutiny of their applications, is sought to be withdrawn illegally. While, it is true that the petitioners in their writ petition did mention the factum of their rustication and their career being ruined if the order withdrawing permission to appear in the examination was not revoked. Again they failed to disclose that they had in the first instance obtained permission to appear by false declaration. Rather they adopted a posture of aggrieved innocence by claiming that they had been falsely implicated and rusticated without an opportunity of showing their innocence. Further that permission to appear had been withdrawn without any show cause.

7. This court taking note of the false declaration filed, issued notice to show cause returnable on 23rd May, 2002 as to why action for contempt for filing a false declaration and for contempt by interfering in the course of justice be not initiated. The petitioners on 23.5.2002, through their counsel tendered their unconditional apology and expressed regret over what had happened .

8. Mr. Rakesh Tikku counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were young in age and could not fathom or realize the consequences of their action. He prays for a lenient view being taken and acceptance of their apology. On instructions from the petitioners who were present in person he submitted that the petitioners were willing to render community service or abide by such other directions as may be given by the Court, to atone for their wrong.

9. Petitioners happen to be young students against whom a case under Section 307 IPC has been registered. Petitioners are stated to have been released on anticipatory bail. After rustication in their anxiety to continue with their education, they filed a false declaration and secured admission to B.A.Ist year Sociology as private students. The petitioners knew fully well that they could not have been admitted as private students, but for the false declaration filed by them. This conduct was of course deceitful . However, upon the mistake being discovered, the permission was withdrawn. Petitioners then filed the present petition seeking to assail the order of cancellation of the permission. The writ petition being filed on the basis that the order had been arbitrarily passed and without any show cause. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioners' averments that they were being arbitrarily denied permission to continue to take the examination was false to their knowledge. This had been attempted somehow to obtain an order from the Court. The said acts interfered with the administration of justice and constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, The petitioners have tendered their unconditional apology expressing remorse for their actions. The petitioners state that they were under considerable tension and pressure on account of the case listed against them coupled with the order of rustication, which had brought to an end their educational career. In these circumstances, the petitioners applied for being permitted to appear as private students. Petitioners state that they realise that they should not have made the declaration to obtain admission as also filed a writ petition claiming that the order of cancellation of examination be withdrawn.

10. It appears to me that the petitioners have expressed remorse and are genuinely Realizing their mistake and the apology tendered is sincere and can be accepted and is accepted. As a token of their bonafides, petitioners, have voluntarily offered to do some community service to express their remorse. I feel that this would be the appropriate course of action in these circumstances. The petitioners, who have offered to render community service are directed to present themselves before Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Member Secretary. Delhi Legal Services Authority, Room No. 1, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and work under his supervision carrying out all the tasks and duties as may be assigned by him for a period of two months from 16th August, 2002.

The writ petition is dismissed and the notice for contempt stands disposed with the above directions.