Delhi High Court
Assistant Professor Salahuddin vs Vice Chancellor Of J.M.I. ... on 26 October, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#32
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 760/2010
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SALAHUDDIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kirpal Singh, Advocate
versus
VICE CHANCELLOR OF
J.M.I. UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
% Date of Decision: 26th October, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
CM No. 18977/2010 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
LPA 760/2010
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 01st September, 2010 whereby the appellant's
writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5552/2010 has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant
had applied to the respondent-Jamia Milia Islamia University for
admission to Ph.D. Programme in the year 2008. However, as the
appellant was not admitted on account of his employment in a college
outside Delhi, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:-
"(a) To issue a writ or order or orders or direction or
directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to register the name of petitioner in Ph.D.
Registration to submit thesis of Ph.D. in subject
Mathematics, since 27.7.2008, 6.3.2009, pay Rs.30 lakhs
as damages and mental torture by respondents to the
petitioner from his pocket expenses and cost of litigation
may be paid.
(b) To issue a writ or order or direction or directions in
the nature of certiorari to direct respondent to pay Rs.30
lakhs as compensation of damages and mental agony due
to doing work of admission of in Ph.D. by dictatorship
malafide intention, arbitrary and against principle of
nature justice and pay cost of litigation and interest 10%
by the respondents personally from their own pockets.
(c) Pass such other or further order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case in the interest of
justice."
3. The learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned order refused
to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had filed
the same after a lapse of two years of rejection of the application for
admission of the appellant during which period the system of admission
to Ph.D. Programme had changed with effect from July, 2009.
However, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the appellant to
file appropriate proceedings seeking damages in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Kirpal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the
learned Single Judge had erroneously reached the conclusion that the
system of admission to Ph.D. Programme had changed with effect from
July, 2009. Mr. Singh drew our attention to page 102 of the paper book
to contend that certain candidates had been enrolled in Ph.D. course in
2009 after being exempted from the entrance test.
5. Having heard Mr. Kirpal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant,
we are of the opinion that the document at page 102 does not show that
candidates were exempted from entrance test after the system of
admission to Ph.D. Programme had changed, that means, with effect
from July, 2009. In any event, even if the said submission is assumed
to be correct, then also, the present petition involves a disputed
question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ proceeding.
Moreover, as the learned Single Judge has preserved the appellant's
right to file appropriate proceedings seeking recovery of damages, we
are of the view that impugned order calls for no interference.
6. We are further of the opinion that in view of the time lag of two
years between the rejection of the appellant's application for admission
to Ph.D. Programme and the filing of the aforesaid writ petition, the
present petition suffers from laches.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed in limine.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 26, 2010
js
