Sanjeev Sharma vs Rajmata Vijya Raje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier he filed Writ Petition No. 6784/2012, which was decided on 8.10.2012. In the said case the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus for accepting the fees of third semester, first year of B.Sc. (Agriculture) with further direction to take action against respondent No. 2. He prayed for adjustment/refund of the fees. This Court disposed of the said petition with the directions to the academic council to take a humanitarian and reformative approach and take a decision on the application of the petitioner. In turn, the respondents issued a notification dated 16.11.2012, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner was permitted to deposit registration fees as a special case in the semester of Sessions 2013-2014 to continue his degree programme. This order is under challenge in this petition. Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has committed an error in granting permission for future session of 2013-2014, whereas it should have been given for 2012-2013.

Per Contra, Shri Nakul Khedkar, learned counsel appearing for Vishwavidyalaya supported the order and submits that a lenient view is taken and in absence of provision, no retrospective registration was permissible.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The respondents while passing the order impugned, Annexure P-1, has held as under:-

In the 13th Academic Council Meeting held on 03.11.2012 under Agenda Item No. 10, the Counsel went through the directives pronounced by the Hon''ble High Court in the petition lodged by the student Sh. Sanjeev Sharma and found that though the student is abnormally late in deposition of fee and no-provision for registration for this long delay is permissible in the rules, but looking to the future of the student, the request of the student and compliance of the directives of Hon''ble High Court of M.P. Bench, Gwalior, was considered sympathetically on humanitarian grounds and the Council after consideration decided that the student Sh. Sanjeev Sharma be permitted to deposit registration fees as a special case in the 1st Semester of Session 2013-14 to continue his degree programme.

However, the Council unanimously decided that this should not be quoted as precedent in future. The student is also advised to be more careful in future and should not commit any such acts in future which is against academic regulations.

The respondent has specifically stated that there is no provision for registration after long delay. They opined that in absence of any provision in the rules, retrospective registration for 2012-13 is not permissible, yet by taking sympathetical and humanitarian approach it was decided that the petitioner be permitted to deposit registration fees as a special case for next session and even this will not be treated as a precedent henceforth.

Scope of interference in academic matters is limited. Writ can be issued when a statutory violation is pointed out or a statutory right exists. The infringement of fundamental right can also be a ground for interference. However, petitioner is unable to show any enabling provision which permits the academic council to provide retrospective registration to the petitioner. The main reason for rejection is that in absence of rules, retrospective registration cannot be granted and, therefore, on humanitarian ground it was granted from next year.

In absence of showing any violation of statutory rules or fundamental right in the said order, no interference can be made.

Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner although criticized the decision on the basis of certain other decisions taken by the academic council, in my opinion, the other decisions are on a different subject and in different fact situation. No wholesome parity could be established by the petitioner while quoting examples of other decisions of the academic council. In absence of showing aforesaid right, I find no reason to interfere in the order, Annexure P-1. For the reasons stated above, petition is dismissed. No costs.