Ramesh Singh Deswal vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Agriculture and Forestry, and Others

U.C. Srivastava, J.—The Court has perused the affidavit-in-reply dated August 2, 1986 filed by the Registrar on behalf of the Respondent-University. In justification of the refusal of admission to the petitioner, the Respondent-University has relied upon the power conferred by the following para of the Prospectus for the academic year 1986-87:

3.110. Refusal of admission.

(a) The past record of a candidate as to his conduct shall also be considered while deciding his admission. If it is found that the candidate has been indulging in acts of indiscipline in the College/ Hostel or is guilty of having organized unlawful demonstration etc., the admission committee may refuse admission to the candidate. The decision of the admission committee shall be final. Such candidates as have been expelled, rusticated or debarred by this University or by other Universities, shall not be admitted to this University during the period of their disqualification.

(b) The Vice-Chancellor reserves the right of refusing admission to a candidate whose admission, in his opinion, may not be in the interest of the University even if the candidate fulfils the academic requirements for admission on the basis of the criteria laid down in these Regulation. However, the Vice-Chancellor shall record the reasons for such refusal.

There is no manner of doubt that so far as refusal of admission under the first part of sub-para (a) of Para 3.110 is cencerned, such refusal involves civil consequences and tends to cast a stigma on the character of the candidate desiring to seek admission. The decision, if any, founded on the exercise of the power conferred by that part of sub-para (a) has, therefore, to be arrived at consistently with the rules of natural justice. The three basic requirements of natural justice, which must be complied with under such circumstances, are: (1) the disclosure of the material sought to be relied against the candidate; (2) a reasonable opportunity to correct or controvert such material; and (3) a fair and just decision supported by reasons. The same consideration and limitation will apply to the exercise of power conferred by clause (b) of the said para because refusal of admission by the authority therein mentioned on the ground that it may not be in the interest of the University also has similar implications and consequences.

Be it remembered in this connection that when an action is founded on the past record of a person, he may be in a position to explain or clarify, if he is afforded a reasonable opportunity, that, for example, he had no knowledge of the material or allegations relied against him since he was never informed about the same at the relevant time and he has a valid defence, or the matter was irrelevant or extraneous, or to plead extenuating or mitigating circumstances, etc. Compliance with the rules of natural justice under such circumstances has been, therefore, always regarded as not a mere empty formality but a basic requirement of the rule of fair play.

In the present case, on the basis of the material on record, the Court is not satisfied that such an opportunity was given to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the Court passes the following order:

(a) The operation of the impugned decision is suspended;

(b) The Respondent-University is directed:

(i) To consider afresh the case of the petitioner for admission to the course in question in accordance with law and in light of the observations made hereinabove, and

(ii) To arrive at a fresh decision which may annul, modify or confirm the impugned decision;

(c) In arriving at such a fresh decision, the Respondent- University will not be influenced in any manner by the impugned decision (the operation of which has been suspended) and the said decision will, for all practical purposes, be considered as nonexistent; and

(d) The fresh decision arrived at as aforesaid will be placed on the record of the case within a period of 15 days from today.

To be listed on September 8, 1986.

Dasti copy to be supplied in the course of the day tomorrow.