Full Text
* IN ·rn::n~ HIGH: COURT OF n_ELlU AT NJ<~W DELHl
+ W.P.(C) 4622/2011 & CM.9388/2011
'Yc, .
JUDGMENT
/\Sl-IRAF•' KAMAL ..... Petitioner
'fhrough: Mr.Alamgir, Advocate
Through: Mr.M.A. Siddiqui, Mr.Rohit Gandhi and
Ms.Tibah Siddiqui, Advocates
~;.S.SlSTANl, J. (ORAL) l. Pleadings are complete in this matter. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the present petition is set down for final- hearing and disposal.
·rhe facts as set out in the petition arc that the petitioner claims himself to be a brilliant student and has successfully completed his gradLiation from the respondent no.l, University. The petitioner has been associated with this University since he was in class IXth. The petitioner passed his
Secondary School Examination in the year 1997 and has passed his class-
XII examination in the year 1999-2000. 'l'he petitioner passed B.A. in the year. 2004 and thereafter petitioner was admitted to J'vf..A. in Public
Administration which he cieared in the year 2007. Thereafter the petitioner passed his P.G. Diploma in Dalit & Minority Studies in the year
2008. Petitioner also cornplcled his Master of International Business in the vcar 2008. •'
2. After completing his -Master's degree, the petitioner applied with WI'.(() 4622/2011 !'age I ~~r 14 2013:DHC:7263 ">.).. respondent University 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. This application had to be routed through the respondent no.l. The petitioner was interviewed by the Board of Studies and was successful. 1'he b.oard accepted and recommended the name of the petitioner for the Ph.D. programme. All the applications, including the application of sponsorship to Ph.D. programme, were to be routed through the respondent no.3, Proctor for his recommendation I registration of the candidates. 'l'hc case o:f the petitioner was also sent to the office ofProct01:, however, the Proctor with mala fide intention did not grant approval to the petitioner's recommendation.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner did not hear iimn the respondent for a considerable lapse of time with respect to his sponsorship, he inade a detailed representation on 1.8.2008 to the Vice- Chancell.or of the University, but, no response was received, hm:vcver, in response to a RTI query the petitioner was informed that his case has been detained by the Proctor. Subsequently and by a notice dated 12.10.2010 petitioner was banned from entering the University.
5. By the present petition the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent to quash the notice of 12.10.2010 by which a campus· ban has been imposed on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent to deny admission to the petitioner in the Ph.D. course as well as to impose a campus ban on petiticmQr are arbitrary, illegal, malafide and vexatious being contrary to law and the.fa.ct:s nf the present case.
6. Jt is submitted by coun.sCl for the petitioner that in case the petitioner is denied adm issi~m and also in case the campus ban is n()t lifted it yvould... WI'. (C) 4ri221'J.OJ I Pa"e 2 oll[4] "'..
7. result in serious miscarriage of justice. Counsel places strong reliance on the academic record ofthe petitioner, to show that he is a brilliant student and has been associated with the respondent, university, since the year
1997. It is also submitted that the allegations of indiscipline in the university campus pertain to the years 2005 and 2006 and smce the respondents did not take any disciplinary action against the petitioner pursuant to the letter of 18.7.2005 and 18.7.2006, the acts of indiscipline if any of the petitioner stand condoned. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner i.e. of parking his black coh)Llr car in a non-parking zone are false and baseless. According to the petitioner the allegations are absolutely false and more so for the reason the petitioner· docs not possess a black colour car: It is submitted that these allegations have been levelled against the petitioner with a view to create a ground to prevent the petitioner from getting admission in the Ph.D. programme, on false and Jlimsy grounds, more so at the behest of the younger brother of the Proctor, respondent no.3, who is inimical towards the petitioner and respondent no.3 is acting at the behest of his brother. It is submitted that the petitioner has never been involved in any unethical activities much less any acts of indiscipline in the university campus, as alleged or otherwise.
8. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the notice of 12.10.20I 0 and note dated 12.10.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 have been passed without any application of mind, as the petitioner cannot be banned from entering the college campus for life. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that the notice da.ted 12.10.20l 0 and the note of the same date be quashed and writ of Mandamus be jssued to the respondents to grant admission to the·petitioner in the Ph.D course. 1V.P. (() 4b22!20/ I I
9. The present writ· petition 1s vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondents submits that firstly the present writ p.etition is barred by delay and laches as far as prayer (i) is concerned. Mr.Siddiqui submits that the petitioner was declined admission to the Ph.D. course in the year 200R, but there is no explanation as to why the petitioner waited for three years before approaching this.court. "It is submitted that even the parameters for grant of admission to the Ph.D. course have since been changed by the University.
10. Counsel for the respondent further submits that campus ban notices against the petitioner were issued in the year 2010 on account of his painful activities in the carnpus which the petitioner continued to indulge in· notwithstanding the fact that he was rio ·longer a student of the university. It' i's contended that the campus ban was imposed on the petitioner on account of his irresponsible activities, which he continued even after he was denied admission in the year 2008 and there are justiJiable reasons for making such an order. l L Counsel for respondent also submits that it is an established principle of ~: law that interference by court pertaining to discipline: ih academic -""· institution should be to a bare minimal. lt is submitted that the order passed against the petitioner is preventive in nature and not punitive and with a view to thwart any atteli1pts by undesirable elements in the campus, who tend to gain and thrive in a disturbed enl<)I"Cement. Tt is ~;ubmitted that the University -has taken extra care to ensure that the delicate and fragile peace as ensured and initiated on the campus through care and attention and the concerted efforts of the academic administrators does not I go waste.
12. It is also submitted that the order has been passed· with great sense of rcspon:;ibiljty and o'nly with a view to maintain proper atmosphere iil the W.l'. (() 4622/20/1 Pa;::e 4 t~.f'/4 university which has had a disturbing past. Counsel for the respondent submits that on 19.7.2005 letter of warning was issued to the petitioner when he disrupted the functioning of the Central Library. In the year 2006 the petitioner collected some 250 students and tried to disrupt the functioning of the entire university. The students were incited to go on a rampage and the doors of the Office of the Vice-Chancellor were broken. A complaint was lodged by 28 security guards.of the respondent, institution against the petitioner. It is submitted that this past record o{the petitioner was taken into consideration by the Proctor while rejecting petitioner's case for admission to the Ph.D. programme.
13. Tt is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the apprehension of the respondents with regard to his conduct wci~e fortified by the subsequent conduct of the petitioner which has led to his campus ban on account of an incident of 15.9.2010, when he was no longer a student of the University. Mr.Siddiqui submits that on the date of the incident petitioner forcibly parked his car in a no parking zone of the university campus and a complaint was lodged on the same date. Another incident took place on 6.10.2010 when the petitioner was no longer a student of the University, he forcibly tried to enter the l~1culty of Education and abused, assaulted ' and threatened the guard with dire consequences, as he was stopped from entering the preinises. Again on 8.5.2011 petitioner aided, assisted and abetted the holding of a hostile DHARNA of the students in the campus, who were made to agitate against the implementation of the statutory attendance requirements by the university authorities and from implementing the directions of the High Court passed in the Writ Petition No.2633-2636, 2638, 2639, 2640, 2470, 2970 and 2553/2011 and in LPA No.405/20ll and 452/2011. Another serious act of indiscipline has been attributed to the petitioner when on 4.7.2011 the university authorities W.l'. ((} 4fi22/20i I Pa~;e 5 l!f'l[4] ·~ l complained against the petitioner to the local police about his involve1nent in a racket of procuring admission in the university through deceitful means and getting illegal gratification.
14. Counsel for the respondent also submits thatJamia Millia Islamia has a glorious history (established in 1920, and is the oldest Unive1~sity in Delhi), came to suffer fi·om a process of creeping degeneration.leading to frequent disturbances in the Campus which began to endanger the health of the institution and its acadcm ic standards and goals. Unrest and. indiscipline openly manifested.itself in various unhealthy tones. Politicians, interlopers, anti-social elements, land sharks joined in to give fillip to the disturbances. Appropriate remedial steps had, therefore, to be taken to ensure that vast majority of those genuinely interested in pursuit of their academic studies were (and are). NOT held to ransom by undesirable elements. Even today, sinister attempts continued to be made by undesirable clements, who tend to gain and thrive in a disturbed environment. Extra care has necessarily to be taken· to ensure that the delicate and fi-agilc peace as ensured and initiated on the Campus through care and attention and the concerted efforts ofthe academic administrators does not go waste. Counsel thus contends that respondent wei·e well within their rights and for cogent reasons had taken a preventive measure and declined admission to the petitioner on ac·c~unt of his past conduct, which also st9nds fortified on account of his subsequent acts and de~d of indiscipline.
15. Counsel for respondent has placed _strong reliance on the judgm·ent rendered by this court in the case·of llamidur Rahman V.\'. lamia Milia Jslamia & Ors. passed _in WP(~)No:42S8/20_12, which was upheld by the Division BenGl{of:\his ccrurt in (I~l{ N[6].~S8/2012....
16. T have heard counsel for the. parties considered their rival submi·s?idl!~~~..._·, "'' '·'.':\:·.~··-:-~.·~;·:'.·.,...·.:.. ·;· W 1'. (C)'46lil2011
17. pleadings and anncxurcs filed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has had a long association with the respondent no.l ~hen he first joined the Jamia Millia University and appeared in the Secondary School.. Examination in the year 1997. It is also not in dispute that the petitionef' had made an application seeking admission in the Ph.D. programme and the Board recommended the name of the petitioner. It is the Proctor, who on taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner, declined the admission to_ the petitioner in Ph.D. programme in the respondent no.l, college, The tirst complaint against the petitioner pertains to the year 2005, when the f()llowing warning was issued to the petitioner. "JAMIA MILLIA ISLAl\1IA (A Centt;al University by an Act ofParlian\ent) Students' Affairs Section (Proch~r·ial Department) M.aulana Mohammed Ali Jauhi:ll: Marg, New Delhi-ll 0025 Tel:26982434, 26981717 Ext.: 1801, 1902 E-mail: proctor(Zujmi.ernet.in No.F/PO/Cien/2005/ July 19, \VAl~NING WliEREAS it has been reported that-you were involved in unlavvful activities and tried to disturb the functiorilhg of.R.eading l~oom of the Dr. Zakir Husain Library, closed the Library gate ·and started shouting slogans outside the l--ibrary qn 18.7.2005 at 11.00 a.m. TAKE" NOTE that your unju:stificd behaviour/misconduct as charged above was in gross viol'ation of the Jamia's Rules and Regulations which is viewed seriously...
YOU ARE hereby warned to refrain y_Qurself fiom: such condemnable activities. In future,· if vou indulge yourself in...,....... Ru inish~h~Mi;q)1r/hl'isconduc[1] or unlawful activity, stritt actiop. will be iriiti:~~ed against you as per Jamia's rules an~.- i~egulations.\vh:ich W.P. (C) 462.li~OII.~·j ~~ ·..;: '.~ ~. ·. Page 7 t!{l[4]...I includes suspension, campus ban and even rustication.· Mr. AshrafKamal MIB-Und Semester S/o Mr. Kamaluddin Ahmed· H.No.l[8], (l.R.G. Road) New Delhi-11 0025" (Prof Rocket Ibrahim} Proctor
18. The Proctor also took into consideration another complaint of 18.7.2006~ which reads as under: "To Proctor Jamia Millia Islamia Jamia Nagar New Delbi-25 Sir, 18.7.2006 It is submitted that today 18.7.2006 we were all doing our duty that at around ll am about 250 students reached and collected in the laws of the University Polytechnic. 'J'here Sh. Shams Parweiz (rusticated student) anct Ashraf Karual (l{cspondcnt) were delivering speeches and 'thereafter visited each and every department and disrupted teaching. We tried to reason with them but of no avail. Ashraf Kamal (Respond~nt) led the mob in the library and forcibiy got it closed. Then incited the students to go on a rampage. The doors of the Office of the VC were broken. T'his is for information. Applicants ''., '·.· • '-~~~.'...:.~' ~ 4._· ': All Sec·urity Guards. I' 30 in:·"riumber"
20. The Proctor in this case has submitted his report to the Vice-{~hancellor, who has finally taken a decision in the matter. It would be useful to reproduce the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of.Director (Studies), Dr.Ambedkar.institute r~l llotel Jlianagetnent, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and Others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, reported at (2009) 1 sec 59, \Vherein it was held as under: "27.Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has r~peatedLy held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. with.· the orders passed in educational matters by domestic tribunals.: set up by educational institutions vide Board o(Hie:h S~chool dnd Intermediate Education..... l-. v. Bagleshwar Prasad. AIR 1966-L)~C 875 (vide AIR para 12), JP. Kulshrestha (Dr.) V. Allahabad University (1 980) 3 sec 418 {vide SCC para 17: AIR para 17), Raje~dra Pra.~;ad.Mctthur ·1,;_ Karnataka University 19(~6 Supp SCC 740 (VIDE sec PARA 7: AiR para ~). We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decillions, and fitrther state that the Iligh Courts should not ordinarily inte1fere with the jimctioning and orders qf· the educational authorities unless_. ~here is clear violating of some.<;;tatutory rule or legalprinF.ipl~; Al;s·o; there must be strictpuii(v _tn ihe exam.inqti(ms qf educational institutions and nu,'lympathy (Jrieniency shou)d.be s-lu)H!iq. 'to · candidate,•; who resort to unfair· means ·in. · triE:· ' '... • ••. 1.·."'... ' • -~,·: • '<' ' ~,·:·..i:!... •......:...::~·.......;.;.~··
IV. P..(C) 4.62?12011. -~; •.· '.~. Page 9 of11 ~.·.~/~~.~-.:...·" •••,. i t:_-..,. examinations. "..
21. · Tt \Vould also be useful to reproduce the observations made by the Division Bench while deciding the LPA No.688/20 12. Paragraphs 8, 9 & l 0 of the judgment read as under: "8. We are notoblivious of the fact that Education plays a vital role in every individual's life today and every citizen has the right to education. Education tells men.how to think, how to work. properly, how to make decision. Through education only one can make separate identity. Education provides a student required knowledge, technique, skill and information and enables them to know their rights and duties towards their family, their society and towards · their motherland at large. Education is one of the important factors \Vhich formulate the persona of a person. Education- is a productive and beneficial factor in a person's life. It is everyone's right t<? get education as it develops a meaningful outlook. em life.
9. Equally, we arc also not oblivious of the importance of discipline among students. Universities today have ~trivcn to ensure· principled conduct J()r the admission of studet:1ts and the transitimi. to higher education. The code of conduct is amongst the neccs~ary. clements which are known today for admission of any student in schools or universities. The admission procedures in universities have· become increasingly influenced by stringent rules..· 0f disciplinary code in universities. Schools, colleges and uni\iersities, as \veil as other institutions, organizations and individuals dedicated to the pursuit of higher education, sholtfd also believe in· the dignity, worth and potential of ea~h and every student. Reg(lrqlcss of the college's ·evaluation system ou marks and· merit, studepts should present a well-rounded.picture of their skills, experi~nc.c, personal traits that includes chara~ter, discipl inary_n:~commendf.ltion by previous institution. Even though admiss.ion relies majorly on merit, yet disciplinary code of conduct plays it own important i"qle in admission of a student. 'fhe objective of.lJniversities to ·rely on a discipline code for admission:- of students in. a ·com:se ·i.ticlu~es enfqrcing qqtd91nic rules to proinote a community- atmosphere iq which ieJ·d)ff1i:·cair best take ·place. Such ari: ativosphcre ~art)~1~.. maintaine·d only so long as every student be~!q~vcs that his J;r.4~:~~ _.;'.:·.:. aGa~t~m.ic cmnpetcncc is being judged fai.dy·ahd that he or.;:;p~;>Yj:J.fi.>·:~; ·:·....:..-.·~·...· ·.....·..·· ·. ·.·:.:_...·-~::·:':/P~~:,~::::.-:.:"/{,J...w.7•. (() 462'2/2-0fl..: ·..;.. J?age"J(J or j[4].."-.,,<~~~~ _: ~.... /I,• Yf:~. ·; v n(Jt be put at a disadvantage because of someone else's indiscipline; Discipline in schools and· universities must be recognized as. prioritized criteria for admission of a student in a particular course. · The acceptance of? student's application can only be on- pUre basis of the character certificate issued by the prior institute where the student was receiving education. Discipline is an important step in any institution and especially a university which is considered to be the temple of education and where a student shall learn the basic ethics of professionalism coupled with discipline, once he enters into the market. Every university in India abides by their admission rules/policies which are set by members of a Committee who arc cxpcrtise with admission norms for students according to their skills, personal traits, disciptinc and merit. Merit although being an importmit criteria for admission cannot alone stand as a factor for compulsory admission -of ·a student Discipline in aLl forms inJluences a student's. personal image throughout their student-li1·e. Every university now has special clauses and criteria f(x discipline; amongst students so as to maintain the dignity, goodwill and reputation of that particular university. Therefore discipline plays an important role in any student's career and universities should make it a compulsion for every student to have fl. god character certificate to which tl1ev mav be granted adm.ission m anothe;...,... '--' ".. institute. l 0. As already noted, a student who applied, attended intctvicv.r and was selected f()r a particular discipline was entitled to be admitted on the basis of his rank.:Equally, it is the solemn responsibility on the part of the University to consider the past:conduct of the ?tudent even if such student was ranked for the adtilission. ln the event, admission of the appellant is not conducivs.Jor good administratifm of the University and it may aiTect the discipline among other students, it would be vveli vvithin its right to refuse ad1rtission. In the event, such student i:s denied admiss)on, th~ judicial review on such decision is only in respect whether such exercise of power by the. University is arbitrary, unreasonable and mi_fair." ·raking into consideration the pa,st conduct 6f the petitioner and the complaints dated 18,0]~:20.05 and 18.7.2006 the Vice--Chancellor took a • ""·~;: '··' • • ~ '. g'. decision.not to ··gr_arit.adiTtission to the petitionet; in the·Ph.D course>··~n;:·, ~..
2008. As h:c.'!4.·.:by this Coun and reitcnited by the Divi,sic>h Bench:it~:i;;_th~·:~:'·i·-~\~. ''t.:~. ".. 1·.. ' ••:.,·...~···, ~..·.: ~..,.~:<.·:.:_:,.;..·:.·:~-:~:·~~·:·.. -: W.I'.(C)4622/201I,,.,. · !'ageli<fl[4]..··~·:... " Vice Chancellor who is responsible for maintaining discipline m the University and, thus, the decision lies with the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision as to whether the admission of the petitioner is conducive for good administration of the University and it may affect the discipline among other students, it \Vould be well within its right to refuse admission. In the event, such student is denied admission, the judicial review on such decision is only in respect whether such exercise of power by the University is arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. The complaints against the respondent did not end on 18.7.2006. Had the petitioner approached this court in the year 2008 itself the Court may have been forced to take a different view in the matter, but the conduct of the petitioner post 2008 also does not reflect a very encouraging picture. The incid.ents of 15.9.2010 and 6.10.2010 also show that the petitioner ·had forced his entry to the University and has not followed the discipline of the University. The courtcannot lose track of the complaint made to th~ SBO, Jamia Milia Nagar on 8.5.2011, which is reproduced beiow: rj~ o, SJIO. Jamia Nagar Police Station "~Dated
08.05. ].]. This is to inform tha[1]: about 15 students who had been detai11ed because of shortage of attendance were sitting or) dhama · at the main lJniversity' s road footpath, near Administrative Blo~k; since 07.05. I l. ·roday at about 4 PM they started fixing· pecca shaminana at this site at the behest of one campus banned exstudent of this UniversitY namelv. Ashraf Kamal. 'fhcse elements ~. ~...... started slogan shouting obstr,uc.;ting the nonnai traffic on the..i·N:rd~ When t~G.'::~.:sccp·ri()i guards/Asshs./S[1].;tp.. Objected to it,.they ma~handit~d them with insulting rcmcirks.. 1'l}csc. detained. ·students.' alsq tried to dis-turb peaceful ongoing EJ?t:r~nce Exami.)latiO'Ii'.tJ:G '·....,.. '.... ':·:.: '"'}:'·\~;::~~;: '. ·: '....:.::.'~: I·V.I'. (C) 4~?2(20il. ·· · Page i[2] o(i[4],c. •,. •\ AJKMCRC. 1'hey also distributed objectionable pamphlets & hand bill. The examinees and tried their maximum to vitiate the peaceful environment at the university campus. It is therefore requested to initiate necessary action in the matter so that the normalcy and law & order remains on the campus enabling us to hold the ongoing examinations (today, tomorrow) and on l41 h & l51 h ofMay, successfully: Yours sincerely Prof. Masood Alam Proctor"
24. T'he complaint dated 4.7.2011 made to the SHO, deals with a very serious allegation agaii1st ·the petitioner for demanding money for admission of. '... various sJUc.ients to the,respondent no.l/ University.
25. A cumulative reading of the complaints, show that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner is neither illegal nor unlawfu.l or arbitrary, as it is the Vice-Chancellor, who is responsible for maintaining discipline and is responsible for the safety and security of all students ~ boys and· girls, who arc studying in the University campus. As far as the campus ban on the petitioner is concerned~ the notice of 12.10.2010 as also the note of the same date does not give· the period for which this campus ban has been imposed on the petitioner.;[here is fon:e in the submission of counsel J(Jr the petitioner that this ban cannot be for life. Counsel for the respondents also fairly sublnits that the Committee will review this ban every two years:1nd in all fairness in case the respondents find that the activities of the petitioner arc such which would have no ill effect on the students of the University or that the petitinner has no intentiOJi of disrupting the activities of the University m · future, appropriate orders will be passed.
26. Acc.ordingiy, no gtounds are made out, to ·i.ntcrfcrc with the action of the.' ' •. 1+'.1'. (C) 4622/20/l respondents.· The \Vrit petition and the application are dismissed, with the observations, which have been made·in the concluding portion of the judgment. Fli~H:RUAH.Y 15, 2013 ssn iv.P. (C) 4622/2011 ',. ··'-.