H IGH COURT OF UTTARAKH AND AT NAINITAL W r it Petition No. 254 of 20 10 (M/ S) Ankit Thakur. ……..Petitioner Versus University of Petroleum and Energy Studies And another. …….Respondents Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for respondents. Dated: July 6, 2010 H on ’ble V.K. Bist, J . This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give admission to the petitioner in 2nd semester B.Tech. A.S.E. in University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of petitioner of 1st semester of B.Tech. A.S.E. in the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by respondent no.2, IV. To pass any other and further order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, V. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case arising out of the writ petition are that in the month of August, 2008 the petitioner was selected for B.Tech Avionics Engineering Program for the academic year 2008-2012 and offered the course at Rajahmundry (Andhra Pradesh Campus). After fulfilling the admission criteria, as per petitioner’s request, the course was changed to B.Tech Aero Space 2 Engineering. The petitioner gave his 1st semester exam of B.Tech and on 07.12.2008 the petitioner was arrested for his involvement in case crime no. 97/ 2008, under Section 302 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Mussoorie. On 09.01.2009, the petitioner deposited fees for 2nd semester through Bank Draft in the name of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (hereinafter referred to as the University). In compliance of the order of C.J.M., Dehradun, on 17.01.2009, the petitioner was presented before the University and he submitted application for permission for late registration form for 2nd semester. It is asserted that petitioner father was served with a letter dated 30.04.2009 for regular registration. It is also asserted in the petition that the petitioner was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2009. On 11.12.2009, the petitioner received a letter dated 27.02.2009 from Pro Vice Chancellor of the University in which it was stated that a murder was committed on 26.12.2008 at Hathipaon, Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun in connection of which the petitioner was arrested by the police and the petitioner continues to be in jail, thus keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the competent authority of the University has decided to strike off the name of the petitioner from the University. On 18.11.2009, the petitioner gave a representation/ appeal to the Vice Chancellor of the University stating therein that the petitioner is not the single student against whom criminal case is going on, but there are several other students against whom criminal cases are going on (out of those one student, namely, Amit who is wanted under Section 379,411 I.P.C. and is in bail but his studies are being continuing in the University) but the petitioner is being deprived of from continuing his 3 studies despite the fact that his fees has already deposited for 2nd semester and the University in partial manner permitted said Amit to continue his studies but declined the petitioner to continues his studies. It is further asserted in the petition that vide letter dated 20.01.2010 sent through Law Officer of the University, the petitioner was informed that he was removed from the rolls of the University after approval of the competent authority and the same was done in exceptional circumstances, inter alia for maintenance of discipline and harmony in the University. It is further stated in the petition that on one hand the respondent University is receiving the payment of 2nd semester but on the other hand the petitioner is not being permitted to continue his studies of 2nd semester even after receiving the fees. 3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner was a student of B.Tech. ASE in the University. He joined the University in the month of August, 2008. In December,2008, the petitioner got involved in a heinous crime of murdering a defence (Air Force) personnel. The petitioner was arrested by the police in the said criminal case and remained under custody from 27.12.2008 till the 1st week of December, 2009. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that due to involvement of petitioner in heinous crime of murder which adversely affected the atmosphere of the University, petitioner was removed from the rolls of the University vide order dated 27.02.2009. Removal of the petitioner was necessitated to maintain harmony and peaceful environment in the University Campus and to restore discipline and the same was done after approval of competent authority under Rule 6.1.3 of the First Statute 4 of the University formulated under Section 28(1) of the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Act, 2003. It has further been stated that the petitioner was a student of 1st semester and had merely completed a few months in the University at the time of commission of alleged offence, therefore retention/ re-admission of the petitioner, as claimed by him, will be a serious impact on the moral and discipline of the University which has about 4000 students working in a close environment. It is further submitted that the loss sustained by the petitioner is the result of his own doing and no illegality and arbitrariness is made out on the part of the respondent. It has further been submitted that neither the petitioner entitled for admission in 2nd semester, as asked for, nor he is entitled to get the result of 1st semester declared. Mere depositing the fees for 2nd semester, does not make him entitlement of any relief, however the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same from the University. It is further stated that the letter dated 30.04.2009 was issued due to inadvertence and oversight of the Department concerned, therefore mere issuance of said letter the petitioner does not entitle for any relief as on 30.04.2009, the petitioner was not on the rolls of the University. Since, petitioner’s name was struck off w.e.f. 27.02.2009, there was no occasion for the petitioner to move any representation at the later point of time. The petitioner with the malafide intentions tried to compare him with another student- Amit, against whom a minor criminal case was there and who was subsequently acquitted by the Court. It is lastly stated that Rule 11 of the Act and its clauses applies only in relation to misconduct with the class room, within the University Campus relating to the students, faculties and employees of the University only. These cannot be 5 stretched to the act of murder that too of an outsider. Rule 12 of the Act follows Rule 11, which is a right of appeal which can be availed by a student awarded a penalty. In these circumstances, the petitioner, as per his own case, has got an efficacious remedy of availing remedy of appeal. 4. I have heard Mrs. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the petitioner’s name was struck off from the roll of the University on the basis merely that the petitioner remained in jail in connection with the case crime no. 97/ 2008 under Section 302 and 120-B I.P.C. She submitted that there are several other students in the University against whom criminal cases are registered but they are continuing their studies while the petitioner has been discriminated and has been deprived of to continue his studies. She further submitted that on one hand the respondent University is receiving the payment of 2nd semester but on the other the petitioner is not being permitted to continue his studies of 2nd semester even after receiving the fees. Referring Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun whereby the petitioner has been declared to be a juvenile on the date of alleged commission of crime and contended that the 6 petitioner shall not suffer disqualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred clause-(ii) of Rule 11 of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Act, 2003 and submitted that Rule 11 stands for procedures for enquiry and punishment and clause (ii) of this Section specifically stated that the guilty student shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Committee for cross examination and interrogation but in the present case, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing and he has not been asked to appear before the Committee for cross examination and interrogation. Lastly she argued that in the prevailing circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of for continuing his studies of B.Tech A.S.E. in the 2nd semester of the University and his name has wrongly been struck off from the roll of the University vide impugned order dated 27.02.2009, therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Rebutting the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate has submitted that petitioner’s name has been struck off from the roll of the University on 27.02.2009 and the writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2010, when almost two semesters have passed. Initially the petitioner does not pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.02.2009, but the prayer was amended in the month of May, 2010, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that Rule 11 (ii) of the Act will not apply in the matter rather Rule 12 follows Rule 11, which is a right to appeal which can be availed by a student awarded a penalty. He further submitted that Rule 6.1.3 of the First Statute of the University of Petroleum and Energy studies formulated under Section 7 28 (1) of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Act, 2003 shall be applicable in the case. Rule 6.1.3 of the Act is reproduced as below:- “Ru le 6.1.3:- Without prejudice to the generality of his powers relating to maintenance of discipline and taking such action in the interest of maintaining discipline as may seem to him appropriate, the Vice Chancellor may, in the exercise of his powers aforesaid order to direct that any student be expelled from the University, or be fined a sum of Rupees (that may be specified), or be debarred from taking an examination or examinations for one or more years or that the results of student or students concerned in the examination or examinations, in which he has or they have appeared, be cancelled.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondent then argued that neither the petitioner challenged the order impugned nor he challenged the vires of the Act. The petitioner also did not mention Rule 12 of the Act which stipulates right to appeal. He submitted that admittedly the petitioner has not filed any appeal or revision against the impugned order dated 27.02.2009 by which his name was struck off from the roll of the University and in view of this fact, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondent University has not committed any illegality in passing the order impugned. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the First Statute of the University, it is clear that the University has framed Rule 6.1.3 of the Act, 2003 which relates to maintenance of discipline and in order to maintain discipline, the Vice Chancellor, in the exercise of his powers conferred under the Rule 6.1.3, can expel a student from the University, impose fine, debar from taking an examination for one or 8 more years or can cancel the result of a student in the examination, in which he has appeared. Although the petitioner is on bail, but the University has to maintain harmony and peaceful environment in the University Campus. The name of the petitioner has been struck off from the roll of the University after the approval of the competent authority. Educational Institutions are supposed to maintain discipline in the Institutions. Order for striking off the name of the petitioner from the roll of the University was done for maintaining discipline in the Institution. Further, the alleged criminal case has yet not been decided, therefore, the petitioner cannot compare him with another student who has finally been acquitted. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be given benefit of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This petition was filed after a period of one year. There is no explanation for the delay and laches in filing the petition. The petition deserves to be rejected on this ground also. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner can withdraw his fees, deposited by him for the 2nd semester in the University. 10. No order as to costs. NCM: (V.K. Bist, J .) 06.07.2010