Telangana High Court
Kaloji Narayana Rao University Of ... vs Dr M. A Saiff Ali on 8 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.48 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. T.Sharath, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Chintala Srikanth, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Mr. R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Health, Medical & Family Welfare
Department, for the respondents No.2 to 4.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against the common
order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.32848 of 2024.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are
that the respondent No.1 was admitted to Post Graduate
course in Anaesthesia for the academic year 2021-2022 at
Kakatiya Medical College, MGM Hospital, Warangal
(hereinafter referred to as, "the College"), which is affiliated
to the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences
(hereinafter referred to as, "the University"). Crime No.69
of 2023 was registered against the respondent No.1 by the
police for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and
354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
By a notice dated 09.06.2023, the College has suspended
the respondent No.1.
4. The respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid notice
in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.15669 of 2023. The said
writ petition was allowed by an order dated 11.09.2023 by
the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the order
of suspension dated 09.06.2023 was set aside. However,
the liberty was reserved to the College to initiate fresh
proceeding against the respondent No.1 by adhering to the
principles of natural justice by providing reasonable
opportunity. The College was also directed to comply with
the procedure prescribed in the National Medical
Commission (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in
Medical Colleges and Institutions) Regulations, 2021
(hereinafter referred to as, "the Regulations").
5. The College thereupon issued notices dated
25.09.2023 and 26.09.2023 to the respondent No.1 by
which he was asked to submit an explanation as to why
disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The
respondent No.1 thereupon questioned the validity of the
aforesaid show cause notices in a writ petition, namely
W.P.No.27381 of 2023. The learned Single Judge, by an
interim order dated 03.10.2023, directed the College not to
take any coercive steps against the respondent No.1 in
pursuance of the notices dated 25.09.2023 and 26.09.2023
for a period of two weeks. The College was further directed
to consider the reply dated 29.09.2023 submitted by the
respondent No.1. The College thereupon issued notice by
which the respondent No.1 was permitted to join the
College on 04.10.2023.
6. Thereafter, on 16.10.2023 the College served a notice
to the respondent No.1 directing him to submit his answers
to a set of questions. The College thereupon informed the
respondent No.1, vide communication dated 01.11.2023,
that the answers will be placed before the Anti Ragging
Committee (hereinafter referred to as, "the Committee").
The respondent No.1, vide communication dated
02.11.2023, requested the College to permit him to take
the assistance of a lawyer at the time of personal enquiry
by the Committee. On 06.11.2023, the respondent No.1
was informed that the meeting of the Committee was fixed
on 09.11.2023 and the respondent No.1 was asked to
attend the same.
7. The respondent No.1 submitted the concluding
remarks on 10.11.2023 instead of 09.11.2023 and the
Committee submitted its recommendations. On the basis
of the recommendations of the Committee, a show cause
notice dated 13.11.2023 was issued to the respondent
No.1. The respondent No.1 submitted a representation to
the College to provide a copy of the minutes of the meeting.
Thereafter, the College issued another notice to the
respondent No.1 on 13.11.2023 by which the decision
taken in the meeting of the Committee was informed to
him.
8. Thereupon, the respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.31910
of 2023. The learned Single Judge, by an interim order
dated 20.11.2023, directed the respondent No.1 to submit
a detailed explanation in writing to the College within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order. The College was asked to consider the reply which
may be submitted by the respondent No.1 to the show
cause notice dated 13.11.2023 within a period of four
weeks. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the College by
a communication dated 19.12.2023, furnished the copy of
the minutes of the meeting of the Committee to the
respondent No.1 and directed him to submit an
explanation within a period of seven days. The respondent
No.1 thereupon submitted an explanation on 27.12.2023.
After consideration of the explanation, the College, by an
order dated 08.01.2024, suspended the respondent No.1
from the College.
9. The respondent No.1 challenged the validity of the
aforesaid order dated 08.01.2024 in W.P.No.900 of 2024.
In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed
an interim order on 10.01.2024 suspending the operation
and effect of the order dated 08.01.2024 with a further
direction to the appellants herein to permit the respondent
No.1 to attend the College.
10. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
University issued the examination notification dated
29.10.2024 proposing to conduct NEET Post Graduate
Examinations. The respondent No.1 submitted a
representation on 13.11.2024 to the College to furnish the
attendance certificate. The College thereafter on
19.11.2024, submitted the attendance certificate wherein it
was mentioned that the respondent No.1 was absent for a
period of 227 days. The respondent No.1 challenged the
validity of the aforesaid attendance certificate in
W.P.No.32848 of 2024. The learned Single Judge, by a
common order dated 10.12.2024, passed in W.P.Nos.900
and 32848 of 2024, allowed the writ petitions and set aside
the order of suspension dated 08.01.2024. The College
was directed to upload the attendance particulars of the
respondent No.1 in pursuance of the notification dated
29.10.2024 and to permit the respondent No.1 to appear in
the Medical P.G.Degree (MD/MS) Regular Examinations,
January, 2025, by marking attendance for the period from
20.02.2023 to 03.10.2023. In the aforesaid factual
background, the University has filed this appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that
the respondent No.1 had not attended the classes and
therefore, he could not have been permitted to appear in
the examination. It is further submitted that the learned
Single Judge ought to have appreciated that against the
decision taken by the Committee, an appeal lies to the Vice
Chancellor of the University under Regulation No.25 of the
Regulations and the learned Single Judge ought not to
have entertained the writ petition.
12. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record.
13. It is a well settled legal proposition that a person
cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. In
the instant case, the order of suspension was passed
against the respondent No.1 on 09.06.2023. However, the
aforesaid order of suspension was passed without
complying with principles of natural justice and in violation
of the Regulations. Therefore, a Bench of this Court, by an
order dated 11.09.2023, passed in W.P.No.15669 of 2023
set aside the same and granted the liberty to the College to
proceed afresh. It is also pertinent to note that the
respondent No.1 had submitted a representation on
13.09.2023 to the College seeking permission to attend the
classes. However, the College did not permit him to attend
the classes. Therefore, the University as well as the College
cannot be permitted to take advantage of the wrong
committed by them. In any case, the learned Single Judge
has granted the liberty to the College to impart training to
the respondent No.1, if it is so required. Needless to state
that the respondent No.1 shall undergo such special
training if required by either the University or the College
and the participation of the respondent No.1 in the
examination shall be subject to the respondent No.1
undergoing the special training which may be conducted
by either the University or the College for him.
14. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is modified.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
08.01.2025
Note: Issue C.C today.
B/o.
vs
