W.P.(C) 1762/2010 Page 1 of 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:15th March, 2011 + W.P.(C) 1762/2010, CM No.3510/2010 (for stay) & CM No.10731/2010 (for the petitioner for declaration of result of the petitioner). ABHIMANYU SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate. versus VICE-CHANCELLOR UNIV. OF DELHI & ANR ... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Mr. Aravind Varma, Advocates. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner was a student of B.A.(Hons.) French Part-III in the Department of Germanic & Romance Studies, Delhi University. A W.P.(C) 1762/2010 Page 2 of 5 complaint dated 8th September, 2009 was made by another student of the same course against the petitioner, of the petitioner of having used abusive/filthy language and having made casteist remarks against her. The University constituted a two Members’ Committee to enquire into the said complaint and which vide its Report dated 17th November, 2009 concluded the complaint against the petitioner to be true. It was found that the petitioner through his actions had shown the worst kind of caste and gender bias and complete disrespect towards the dignity of a fellow classmate. His behavior was found to reflect his casteist and patriarchal mindset. The Committee recommended that the petitioner be debarred from taking Part-III examination up to a period of one year. 2. The petitioner was given a notice dated 5th January, 2010 to show cause as to why he should not be so debarred. 3. That the petitioner in his reply dated 11th January, 2010 though denied that he had hurt or humiliated the complainant but nevertheless furnished unconditional apology, in case the complainant had felt insulted. 4. The respondent University however vide Memo dated 27th /29th January, 2010 debarred the petitioner from appearing in the Part-III examination for a period of one year. 5. Aggrieved therefrom the present petition was filed. Vide interim order dated 5th April, 2011 the petitioner was permitted to appear in the Part-III examination then due, without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions and without creating any equities in favour of the W.P.(C) 1762/2010 Page 3 of 5 petitioner. 6. Pleading were completed. On 2nd February, 2011, the counsel for the respondent University contended that the present writ petition had become infructuous since the period of one year for which the petitioner was debarred had lapsed. The petitioner contended that since the period had expired, the result of the examination taken by him under interim order should be declared. The said request was not acceded to since the petitioner was permitted to take the examination subject to the outcome of this petition. It was as such enquired from the counsel for the respondent University as to whether the respondent University was agreeable to regularizing examination taken by the petitioner under interim order. The counsel for the respondent University on the next date informed that his instructions were to oppose the petition. 7. It has today been put to the counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not take the Part-III examination which is now due to be held again in April, 2011. The counsel contends that the petitioner will lose his seniority in employment since undertaken by him, if graduates in the year 2011 instead of 2010. He further states that the petitioner now after one year is out of touch and will have to again study for the examination. He further contends that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to prove his innocence and even the names of the witnesses who have been examined by the respondent University were not disclosed to him and he was not given any opportunity to cross examine them. He W.P.(C) 1762/2010 Page 4 of 5 contends that the order impugned in this petition of debarring him has been made without compliance of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 8. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner were to succeed on his arguments aforesaid, the petitioner would still not go scot-free; this Court would at best interfere in the procedure adopted by the respondent University and the respondent University would be entitled to thereafter conduct an inquiry in accordance with the rules; the result of the examination undertaken by the petitioner under interim order has to be necessarily withheld till the said inquiry and as to how the petitioner would stand to benefit. This Court is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the petitioner to take the examination now due in April, 2011. 9. The counsel for the respondent University has opposed the petition and has contended that since the petitioner had sent SMS messages not only to the complainant but also to some other fellows girl/classmates, it was deemed expedient to not disclose their identity to save them from harassment. It is contended that the procedure as prescribed in Gender Sensitization against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) Rules would apply and was applied for in case of present nature where the complainant and the witnesses were girl students. 10. The petitioner of course wants that the order impugned in this petition should be set aside in toto. He states that once the order is so set W.P.(C) 1762/2010 Page 5 of 5 aside, his result would be declared and even if the respondent University were to take any action against him thereafter, the respondent University would have no power to withhold his result. 11. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, need is not felt for this Court to return a finding on the challenge to the order impugned in the petition and this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to appear in the examination now to be held. The respondent University is directed to allow the petitioner to so take the examination as an ex-student. The petitioner to approach the Examination Branch of the respondent University on or before 25th March, 2011 for complying with the necessary formalities. No order as to costs. Dasti under the signatures of court master. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MARCH 15th 2011 pp..