Chetan Nainta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The petitioner seeks direction to respondent No.2 for grant of admission in 6th Semester in B. Tech., Civil Engineering Course. The case, as pleaded and argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner is a young boy of 21 years old and very intelligent in studies. He suffered a setback on account of false and fabricated case being registered against him under the provision of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and was alleged to be carrying 7.5 grms heroin. The petitioner has qualified earlier examination and, therefore, should be granted admission in the 6th Semester.

The respondents have filed their reply, wherein apart from other objections, it has been stated that the petitioner has not disclosed the following important facts disentitling him to any relief:-

a) "That the petitioner has not completed his 2nd and 3rd and 4th Semester.

b) That the petitioner has not appeared in the 1st term , 2nd term and the End Term examination of the 5th Semester.

(c) That under Regulation 28.(a) the petitioner is mandatorily required to attend at least 75% of the delivered lectures and practical for the 5th Semester conducted in each course separately. It is stated on oath that the petitioner has failed to attend the requisite mandatory 75 % of the delivered lectures and practical for the 5thk semester. The copy of his attendance Sheet is appended herewith as Annexure R-2/A. He has in fact attended classed only till the 13th August, 2019 after the 5thkl Semester commenced from 31st July, 2019. It may further be mentioned that the University wrote a letter to Mr. Kartar Nainta the father of the petitioner regarding his long absence from the University. Accordingly Mr. Kartar Nainta met the deponent Registrar, of the University and informed him that the petitioner had been arrested by the police, for offence committed by him under the NDPS Act for being in possession of 7.5 grams of Heroin (Chitta). Therefore under the aforesaid regulation he has failed to meet the eligibility criteria to be permitted to attend the 6th semester classes.

(d) That, de-hores of the serious criminal case admittedly registered against the petitioner, on the above grounds alone he is not entitled to be granted admission into the 6th semester as has been prayed by him in his petition."

Confronted with the reply, the petitioner would submit that the respondent-University cannot adopt double standards qua admitting the student as in a more serious case wherein the quantity of heroin was more, the University had granted admission to one Ritik Sharma. However, this allegation is strongly refuted by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 by bringing to the notice of this Court a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in which one of us 'Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge', was a member, in CWP No.654 of 2020 filed by aforesaid Ritik Sharma titled as Ritik Sharma Versus Shoolni University and another, which was dismissed on 25th February, 2020.

Since the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference, therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent- University, pointing out all enabling provisions, if any, seeking appropriate relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.