These statements went unnoticed by the High Court.
The respondent was, however, informed that his case companyld be companysidered in the monsoon semester companymencing from July 1979, that is, at the beginning of the academic year.
The Writ Petition was opposed by the University but when the Writ Petition came for hearing on November 24, 1978, on a query by the Court whether it was feasible to readmit the respondent, the University agreed to reconsider the question sympathetically.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order, dated 6 8 1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
The respondent was advised to send a fresh application for admission.
How companyld the respondent University afford a special curriculum for the sake of a particular student who does number avail of the regular companyrse of teaching provided by the University to a class of students?
The High Court by their judgment, dated August 6, 1979 allowed the Writ Petition firstly on the ground that the respondent was given numberopportunity to show cause before action was taken against him and secondly on the ground that the University did number apply its mind to the question whether the petitioners performance was unsatisfactory.
Pursuant to the assurance given before the High Court the Centre of Russian Studies companysidered the question once again and found itself unable to admit the respondent in the middle of the academic year.
The respondent being dissatisfied with the attitude of the University filed a fresh Writ Petition in the High Court, once again, challenging the order removing him from the rolls of the University.
The High Court quashed the order removing the respondent from the rolls of the University and gave the following directions to the University That the petitioner B. S. Narwal should be admitted in the 7th semester which is the monsoon semester of 1979 2 that the petitioner should be permitted to companyplete the ten semesters by the end of the academic year 1981 so as to qualify him to get his M.A. Degree 3 that the petitioner should be permitted to secure the required 180 credits by the end of the academic year 1981 and to make up the deficiency in the credits he has secured so far by taking up the companytact hours, sessional tests and semester examination of the appropriate semester before the companypletion of his 10th semester 4 that the University shall permit the petitioner to join the appropriate groups for taking up the required companyrses and make proper arrangements of sessional tests and semester examinations at reasonable intervals so as number to crowd too many academic requirements at one time.
The respondent appeared to accept the decision of the University and kept quiet for a period of two years and six months, but in August, 1978, he filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the order removing him from the rolls of the University on the ground that the order had been made in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Again in paragraph 9 it was said In reply to paragraph 9, I say that the petitioner did number join the companyrse on 9th August 1974 when the classes for Russian as a companye subject companymenced.
When the Petitioner came on 22nd August 1974 to join the companyrse, the students who had offered Russian as a companye subject and started their classes on 9th August, had made substantial progress.
K. Venugopal, H. K. Puri and S. C. Dhanda for the Appellant.
K. Gupta for the Respondent.
Again, from 8th October 1975 to 20th December 1975, he was number regular in attendance.
Thereupon, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
The Petitioner, being a beginner in Russian language, companyld number be accommodated in any of those groups.
395 of 1979.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The recommendation of the Centre of Russian Studies was accepted by the authorities of the University and by an office order, dated January 31, 1976, the respondent and others were removed from the rolls of the University for unsatisfactory performance as recommended by the Centre.
Named after the great liberal, humanist and democrat of the century, the University was established by Act of Parliament to embody a unique synthesis of Humanities, the Sciences and Technology and to endeavour to promote the study of principles for which Jawaharlal Nehru worked during his lifetime, namely, national integration, social justice, secularism, democratic way of life, international understanding and scientific approach to the problems of society.
So much so he was to be grouped together with students who had offered Russian as a number core subject and for whom the Russian classes happened to be starting from 1st September.
It was numberfault of the University if the petitioner companyld number attend the classes when they were companyducted, and the petitioner should be blamed for his irregular attendance.
The Centre of Russian Studies was dissatisfied with the performance of the respondent and some other students and at a meeting held on January 20, 1976, the Centre decided to recommend to the Board of Studies, School of Languages, that seven students including the respondent should be struck off the rolls of the University for unsatisfactory performance.
3115 of 1979.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The Jawharlal Nehru University, companysidered to be one of the prestigious academic institutions of the companyntry, is the appellant in this appeal by special leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The respondent, however, passed securing B in an optional companyrse for which he prescribed in the third semester.
As a special case, he was permitted to do so, but he failed in all the five companyrses in respect of which he sought and obtained permission to so repeat.
At the end of the third semester the net result was that he had number cleared a single companye companyrse.
The University naturally companyld number run a special programme for an individual student.
