Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 3283 Del
Judgement Date : 12 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 12.07.2011
W.P.(C) No. 4622/2011
Mr. Ashraf Kamal ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alamgir counsel for petitioner.
Vs.
Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. ......Respondents
Through: Mr.M.A.Siddiqui for the respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral:
*
1. The petitioner has approached this court by
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to seek quashing of the notice
dated 12.10.2010 and the note dated 12.10.2010 issued by the
respondent no.3 whereby a complete ban was imposed on the
petitioner. The petitioner has also sought directions to direct
the respondents to forthwith forward his candidature for
registration in Ph.D. Programme for Dalit and Minorities
Studies.
2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are that the
petitioner is a student of the respondent no.1 university since
class IX and finished his Masters degree in 2008 after which he
applied for Ph.D programme sponsored by Dr.K.R Narayanan
Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies on the topic "Political
Empowerment of Muslims-A comparative study of two select
Districts in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar". The petitioner was called
for the interview for the said course and was recommended by
the Board of Studies for the Ph.d but his admission has been
kept in abeyance till date. On making various inquires and filing
RTI application, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that
the application of the petitioner has been kept pending by
respondent no.3 due to a case of indiscipline against the
petitioner in 2005, of which a warning letter was issued to him
on 19.7.2005. Further on a note dated 12.10.10 was issued by
respondent no.3 whereby it was stated that the petitioner had
involved himself in acts of indiscipline on the University
Campus on 18.7.2005 and 18.7.2006 and recently he has been
seen in the campus parking his black colour car inside the
campus at no parking area and it is feared that the presence of
the petitioner in the campus may cause law and order problem
and thus a campus ban was imposed upon him vide notice
dated 12.10.10. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the said
action of the respondent no.3 and has thus approached this
court for relief.
3. On the last date of hearing, the respondent was
directed to produce the relevant record whereby the decision
taken by the Competent Authority of the respondent University
to ban the entry of the petitioner in the campus of the
respondent University.
4. Today, Mr.Arshad Noor, Dy. Proctor has produced
the original documents. A perusal of the same reveals that the
petitioner was issued a warning by the then Proctor
Professor Ibrahim vide letter dated 19.7.2005. The said
warning was issued by the Proctor to the petitioner on the
ground that he was found involved in unlawful activities of
trying to disturb the reading room of Dr. Zakir Hussain Library
by closing the gate of the library and then raising slogans
outside the library on 18.7.2005 at 11.00 A.M. and due to such
unjustified behaviour of the petitioner, he was warned to
refrain himself from committing such condemnable activities
failing which he was warned that strict action will be taken
against him which may include suspension, ban in campus and
even rustication. The said file also contains another note of
12.10.2010 issued by Professor Masood Alam, Proctor of the
respondent University as recently the petitioner was seen in
the campus in a black colour car in no parking zone of the
campus and therefore it was feared that the presence of the
petitioner may create law and order problem in the campus
and thus a campus ban was imposed upon him due to the same.
5. The case set out by the petitioner in the present
petition is that he was a brilliant student throughout his
career and has successfully completed various courses as
detailed by him in sub-para 1 of para 3 of the petition. It is
also the case of the petitioner that he has completed his
Masters' degree from the respondent university itself in the
year 2008 in the stream of Dalit & Minorities Studies and in
the year 2008 the petitioner had applied for admission in the
Ph.D. Programme duly sponsored by Dr. K.R. Narayanan
Centre on the topic "Political Empowerment of Muslims - A
Comparative Study of two select Districts in Uttar Pradesh and
Bihar" which application of the petitioner is required to be
routed through the respondent no.3, Proctor of University with
its recommendations for the registration to the said Centre. It
is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
interviewed by the Board of Studies and was declared
successful by the said Board and thereafter his name was
recommended by the Board for the aforementioned Ph.D.
Programme. The grievance raised in the petition is that case
of the petitioner to seek admission in the Ph.D. Course is not
being recommended by the respondent no.3 on the premise
that in the past the petitioner was found involved in unlawful
activities and for which a warning was issued by the Proctor of
the respondent University vide letter dated 19.7.2005 and also
because of the recent misconduct of the petitioner in parking
his black colour car in no parking zone. It is the case of the
petitioner that he is unnecessarily being victimized at the
hands of the respondent no.3 , the Proctor of the respondent
University as he has malafide intent so as to spoil the academic
career of the petitioner as the brother of the respondent no.3 is
settling the score with the petitioner through respondent no.3.
It is also the case of the petitioner that before passing the said
banning order the respondent has blatantly violated the
principles of natural justice.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the original documents produced by the counsel for
the respondent.
7. A warning letter was issued to the petitioner by
the respondent University as long back as 19.7.2005 on
account of his alleged involvement in the act of disturbing the
reading room of Dr. Zakir Hussain library. In the said warning
letter the petitioner was warned that if he indulges himself in
such like misbehaviour again then strict action would be
initiated against him which could include suspension, campus
ban or even rustication. Except the said warning letter, no
other order was passed by the respondent University against
the petitioner except the recent banning order passed by the
respondent vide note dated 12.10.2010. The said note clearly
shows that the reason for putting a ban on the petitioner is
due to his parking the car inside the campus at no parking
zone. In the said note the Proctor also expressed his
apprehension that the presence of the petitioner in the campus
may cause law and order problem.
8. The act of the respondent no.3 is completely beyond
the comprehension of this court as it is an absolutely draconian
decision taken by the respondent no.3 to ban the entry of the
petitioner in the campus of the respondent University where he
has been a student for the last so many years. The petitioner
has completed his post graduation in the year 2008 which
would clearly mean that he was allowed to carry on with his
studies of post graduation course even after the said initial
warning letter was issued by the respondent against the
petitioner in the year 2005. This court fails to perceive as how
parking of the car by the petitioner in no parking zone can
result in taking such a harsh decision by the respondent
University putting a complete ban on the petitioner to enter
the campus and that too for an indefinite period. This court
also fails to fathom as to how the presence of the petitioner in
the campus of the respondent will result in creating law and
order problem.
9. Admittedly, no show cause notice has been served by
the respondent University upon the petitioner before taking
the action of banning the petitioner. The respondent has not
given any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case and
has clearly acted in contravention of rules of natural justice.
Rules of natural justice are not some arcane law but are very
much a part of the conscience of the justice dispensation
system of our country and cannot be given a go by in any
eventuality. Not going into the merit of the allegation of the
petitioner of attributing malfide to respondent no.3, this court
would only like to observe that the teachers are revered as
Gods in our culture and are responsible for shaping the lives of
their students, and the sanctity and the status of this position
should be maintained.
10. In the light of the forgoing, the impugned notice
dated 12.10.2010 and the note dated 12.10.10 is quashed. The
respondent university is accordingly directed to forward the
case of the petitioner for his registration for Ph.D. Programme
for Dalit and Minorities Studies, if otherwise the petitioner
fulfills the laid down criteria.
11. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly
in the aforementioned terms.
July 12, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J mg
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!