Sh. Chitrasen Gautam vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 140 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 11th January, 2011

+                                   W.P.(C) 590/2010

SH. CHITRASEN GAUTAM                                            ..... Petitioner
                   Through:                 Mr. Manoj Bansal, Advocate

                                      Versus

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS.           ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Mr.
                            Arvind Varma, Advocates
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    NO

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner in the academic session 2008-09 was admitted to the

M. Phil. Programme in the Centre for the Study of Law & Governance in the

respondent No.1 University. The Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA)

of the petitioner for the first two semesters was of 4.5. The Ordinance of the

University relating to award of M. Phil. Degree, in Clause 8 thereof vests a

discretion in the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research of the

University to strike off from the rolls of the University the name of a student

who inter alia fails to secure CGPA of 5.0 in the course work. The

University vide its order dated 24th July, 2009 in exercise of powers under

Clause 8 of the Ordinance aforesaid removed the name of the petitioner

from the rolls of the University with effect from 21 st July, 2009. The

petitioner was accordingly held not eligible to continue with the M. Phil.

programme. Aggrieved therefrom, the present petition was filed on or about

27th January, 2010. It was pleaded in the petition that though the petitioner

had represented to the University but the case of the petitioner was not

considered. The order of removal of name was challenged on the grounds:

(i) That the discretion had been wrongfully exercised against the

petitioner; that in the academic session 2005-06 another student

Ms. Rajni Bala also had the CGPA of 4.5 but was allowed to

continue in the M.Phil. Programme.

(ii) That the petitioner belongs to the reserved category and the

University while providing for the minimum CGPA for

continuing in the M. Phil. programme, not made any distinction

between the reserved and the unreserved category candidates.

(iii) That though under the Ordinance aforesaid, timely warnings

were required to be provided to each student but no such

warning was meted out to the petitioner.

(iv) That the faculty members of the University were inimical

towards the petitioner because he was a member of the Student

Faculty Committee and taking firm stand for the benefit of the

students.

(v) That since the petitioner belongs to the reserved category, the

University was required to provide him with remedial classes

and which were not provided.

(vi) That the petitioner was not permitted to continue inspite of the

recommendation of the Equal Opportunity Office in his favour.

2. Notice of the petition was issued, though no interim relief granted.

3. The respondent University has filed a counter affidavit in which it is

inter alia stated that the petitioner had suppressed material facts from this

Court. It is informed that the petitioner had applied for re-evaluation of his

case; that the Re-evaluation Committee had met on 20th to 24th August, 2009

but found that the petitioner had copied substantial sections from internet

sources and selective books; that despite several written warnings, the

petitioner had been indulging into repeated plagiarism; that the petitioner

could manage 'C' grade in two papers in the second semester only after

applying moderation; that repeated plagiarism constituted serious offence

and the petitioner was not entitled to continue with the M. Phil. Programme

on this ground alone. It is further pleaded that the petitioner on 9th

September, 2009 had made another representation to the University and in

pursuance whereto a Special Committee was constituted which met on 30th

October, 2009; that the Special Committee after examining the case

including in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avinash

Singh Bagri Vs. Registrar IIT, Delhi (2009) 8 SCC 220 and of this Court in

Amritashva Kamal Vs. JNU 2007 (99) DRJ 528 concluded that the

petitioner was involved in substantial repeated acts of plagiarism and that

repeated and intentional plagiarism cannot be condoned and that it was not

simply a case of low CGPA.

4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in which the petitioner has not

denied knowledge prior to the filing of this petition, of the decision of the

Re-evaluation Committee and the Special Committee constituted on his

representation. What has been pleaded is that if the respondents are accusing

the petitioner of plagiarism, they ought to have proceeded against him in

accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor and without the same

cannot hold him guilty of plagiarism.

5. The removal of the petitioner was in July, 2009. The present petition

was filed only after about seven months in January, 2010. Though the

petitioner in the petition stated having made representations but expressly

pleaded that the same were not considered. However, what has emerged is

that the applications of the petitioner for re-evaluation of his grade and the

representation of the petitioner against his removal were considered by the

appropriate authorities of the University and for detailed reasons stated not

accepted. The petitioner concealed all the said facts from this Court. The

counsel for the respondent University is correct in contending that the

grievance of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition was not really

against the removal order of 24th July, 2009 but against the order on his

application for re-evaluation and on his representation against his removal.

The petitioner did not challenge the said orders. Rather the petitioner made

an attempt to conceal the same from this Court. The counsel for the

respondent University with considerable weight has contended that the

petitioner wanted to conceal from this Court the charge of plagiarism against

him fearing that notice even may not be issued in the petition. It is rightly

contended that plagiarism as far as the M. Phil. programme is concerned has

serious connotation.

6. I am of the view that the petition is liable to be rejected for the reason

alone of concealment practiced by the petitioner. The petitioner did not

approach this Court with clean hands. Whatever the petitioner has pleaded

in the rejoinder with respect to the charge of plagiarism against him ought to

have been pleaded in the petition if the petitioner was aggrieved therefrom.

7. Even on merits, I am satisfied that no error can be found with the

decision of the academic authorities of the University in whom the

discretion vested to strike off the name of any student from the M. Phil.

programme who does not achieve the requisite minimum CGPA of 5.0.

This Court cannot interfere with the decision taken by the academic

authorities. No case for interference is made out.

8. Insofar as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner of the

procedure required to be followed in a charge of plagiarism is concerned,

the respondent University in its counter affidavit has stated that though the

petitioner was found guilty of repeated plagiarism inspite of written

warnings but the respondent University not wanting to spoil the career of the

petitioner in its discretion chose not to proceed against the petitioner for the

same and let off the petitioner with the 'C' grade and with the removal of his

name from the M. Phil. programme. As aforesaid, the petitioner chose not

to challenge the charge of plagiarism against him in this writ petition. The

University while choosing not to proceed against its student on a charge of

plagiarism and which has serious consequences is however fully entitled to

take the same into consideration for taking a decision as to whether to allow

the student to continue with the programme or not.

9. No merit is found in the contentions of the petitioner of his being

entitled to any remedial classes also. The petitioner at the time of

undergoing the course did not seek any such classes. Even otherwise on the

basis of the material no case of the petitioner being entitled to any remedial

classes is made out.

There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JANUARY 11, 2011 'gsr'