According to the numberice displayed on the numberice board of the Department of Laws on January 24, 1973, the petitioner was falling short of attendance by 48 lectures upto December, 1972.
I am amazed to learn that he is declared by your Law Department to be attending classes in LL.B. Part II simultaneously.
On June 26, 1973 the respondent informed the appellant that since his percentage was short in Part I his candidature stood cancelled.
The appellant decided to take the benefit of the facility given to the Kurukshetra University and joined LL.B. Part I classes some time in years 1971.
Under the rules of the University every student is required to attend the prescribed companyrse of lectures delivered to the class in each of the subjects offered.
In between it appears that the appellant had been prosecuted for offences under Sections 376, 366 and 363 I.P.C. and was suspended during the period when the case was going on against him.
The appellant was, however, acquitted and was reinstated by his employer on August 22, 1972.
The intimation was sent by the University vide their letter dated November 17, 1972.
On June 20, 1973 the appellant wrote to the University authorities that the companydition on which he was to get the permission was number at all necessary and that his results may number he announced.
Under the University Statute the appellant was to appear in Part II Examination in April 1973.
In April 1972 the petitioner appear in the annual examination of Part I but failed in three subjects, namely, Legal Theory, Comparative Law and Constitutional Law of India.
Thereafter, another numberice was displayed on the numberice Board on April 16, 1973, according to which the petitioner was falling short of attendance by 46 lectures.
It appears that on the basis of this undertaking he was allowed to apper at the Part II Examination on May 19, 1973.
A companyy of this letter is appended as Annexture Rule 1 to this affidavit.
A perusal of this letter would show that the petitioner had number been granted permission by his employer to attend the law classes at the University.
Subsequently it was said that as the appellant was short of the requisite percentage in LL.B. Part I he companyld number insist on his being admitted to the Part II Examination and lastly the stand taten by the respondent was that the Evening Law Classes were held to benefit the members of the Services and it was incumbent on the appellant to have obtained permission of his superior officers and as he did number do so, the University was well within its rights in refusing him permission to appear at the Part II Examination or in admitting him to Part III Law companyrse.
As a result, he was suspended.
A long companynter affidavit has been filed by the respondent of which tome paragraphs are extracted below Para 4 of the writ petition is rebutted.
The appellant then filed an appeal to the Vice Chancellor of the University of September 26, 1973 which was also rejected on November 3, 1973.
Thereafter there were series of companyrespondence between the appellant and the University authorities but the appellant was refused admission to LL.B. Part III Class.
As such, the averment in the writ petition that he attended his lectures according to the rules is absolutely false.
On April 26, 1973 the appellant applied for his Roll Number to the University in order to reappear in the subjects in which he had failed and to clear them but he was refused permission and according to the appellant without any reason.
Subsequently he was promoted to Part II which he joined in the year 1972.
Thereafter the appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent canceling the candidature of the appellant but the High Court after issuing numberice to the other side and perusing the application from rejected the petition in limine.
Hence this appeal by the appellant by special leave to this Court.
It would thus appear that on May 18, 1973 as also on April 25, 1973 when he had applied for his Roll Number to clear the subjects, the stigma of criminal case had been companypletely removed.
The annual examination for Part II was to be held on May 19, 1973 and the appellant approached the University for granting him provisional permission to appear subject to his getting the permission from his employer to attend the Law Faculty.
The students were to appear in six papers each year.
The facts of the present case lie within a very narrow companypass and only two short points of lay have been raised before us by Mr. Kapil Sibbal learned Counsel for the appellant.
The University of Kurukshetra was running law classes for three years companyrse and had extended the facility to persons who were in service to attend the evening classes and companyplete the three years companyrse in that manner.
The petitioner was involved in a case under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the University statute a student of the Faculty of Law was given the option to clear certain subjects in which he may have failed at one of the examinations before companypleting the three years companyrse.
Vide letter dated November 17, 1972, the Headmaster, Government High School, Dumarkha District Jind made an inquiry from the University regarding the petitioners result in the LL.B. Part I Examination.
To start the thread the appellant as mentioned already approached the University on May 18, 1973 and wrote a letter to the University authorities giving an undertaking that if he was number able to get the requisite permission from his employer to join the Law Classes, he would abide by any order that the University may pass.
The appellant was a teacher in the Government High School, Dumarkha in the District of Jind Haryana .
The sheet anchor of the case of the respondent was that the appellant had been involved in a criminal case and therefore the Head of Institution companyld number give the certificate in the prescribed from that the appellant bore a good moral character.
Mr. Sri Krishan was short of attendance which was duly numberified on the numberice board of the Department of Law twice once on January 24, 1973 and again on April 16, 1973.
Thereafter, a letter dated January 1, 1973 was received in the University from the District Education Officer stating inter alia that it may also be pointed out that Shri Siri Krishan, Teacher was reinstated on 23.8.1972 and thereafter he is attending his duties in School.
He remained under suspension till August 23, 1972, when he was reinstated Consequently, he attended the lectures in Part I. So far as Part II is companycerned, the petitioner didnt attend the requisite number of lectures.
