IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25227 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- CHANDRAMATHY.K.S., AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.SANKARAN K.S., KUTTOTH HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI P.O., IRINJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. 3. THE CAMPUS DIRECTOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25227 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a student of M.A. Vedam in the 1st respondent University. In this writ petition, prayers made by the petitioner are to quash Exts.P4 and P7 reports and to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in the Working Women's Hostel of the respondent University. 2. It is seen from the pleadings that the petitioner secured admission by way of spot admission and that on joining the college, considering the fact that the petitioner is a comparatively elderly person and a sanyasini, she was admitted in the Guest room attached to the Working Women's Hostel, which was being used by the research students and the faculty members of the University. It is seen that, while so, the petitioner made certain complaints against the inmates of the hostel including students and also a lecturer. While so, she was also expelled from the hostel. Those complaints involving allegations of ragging were referred to Anti Ragging Committee, which conducted detailed enquiry and the report of which is Ext.P4. In WPC No. 25227/10 :2 : Ext.P4, the finding is that there was no ragging and that the allegations made by the petitioner were unfounded. It is also found that there were complaints pending against the petitioner and that it was apprehending that action might be initiated against her that she made complaints. 3. Meanwhile, there were complaints of misconducts held against the petitioner which led to the issuance of Ext.P6 order suspending the petitioner from the College. In order to enquire into the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, a Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor and the committee consisting of members of the syndicate conducted an enquiry and Ext.P7 is the report submitted by the Committee. This Committee did not recommend readmission of the petitioner into the hostel from which she was removed. Based on the report of the Committee, the Vice Chancellor issued Ext.P8 order. In Ext.P8 order, though the Vice Chancellor revoked Ext.P6 order of suspension, Vice Chancellor maintained the decision expelling the petitioner from the Working Women's Hostel. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P4 and P6 and also seeking a direction to the respondents to readmit the petitioner to the hostel of the University. 4. Before anything else, this Court has to approach the WPC No. 25227/10 :3 : issue taking note of the fact that the maintenance of discipline within the campus is a matter for the academicians and except in a case where grave irregularities are pointed out or malafides are proved, in my view, this Court should keep its hands off from such issues. 5. In this case, the petitioner is a Post Graduate Student. She is also a comparatively elderly person and is also a sanyasini. It was considering these aspects that the petitioner was granted accommodation in the guest room of the Working Women's Hostel. From the pleadings, it is clear that the inmates of the hostel, who are both research students and teachers, are all having complaints against the petitioner and it was on account of the above that she was made to vacate from the hostel. Grave allegations of ragging were raised by the petitioner and all those allegations have been gone into by the Anti Ragging Committee, which has submitted Ext.P4 report. A reading of the report does not show that the findings of the enquiry are vitiated for any reason. Petitioner also was given an opportunity to prove her allegations before the Committee. However, the finding of the Committee is that there was no case of ragging and that the allegations have been levelled by the petitioner only to avoid action against her. Therefore, the allegations of ragging have not WPC No. 25227/10 :4 : been proved in the enquiry that was held by the Committee. 6. Now coming to Ext.P7, that report was submitted by an Enquiry Committee by the Syndicate of the members of the Committee. Ext.P7 report also shows that the Committee collected evidence from several students and members of the faculty of the University. Petitioner also has given her evidence before the Committee. It is on the basis of the evidence thus collected, the Committee recommended to maintain her expulsion from the hostel. It is this recommendation which has been accepted by the Vice Chancellor in Ext.P8. A reading of Exts.P7 and P8 show that the Committee and the Vice Chancellor considered that such action was necessary for maintenance of discipline in the hostel. In my view, in the absence of any perversity in that finding of the Committee, which has been accepted by the Vice Chancellor, this Court should not interfere with the same. Therefore, Exts.P4, P7 and P8 deserves to be upheld and I do so. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp