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.
The appellant was, however, acquitted and was reinstated by his employer on August 22, 1972.
Hence this appeal by the appellant by special leave to this Court.
The appellant decided to take the benefit of the facility given by the Kurukshetra University and joined the LL.B. Part I classes some time in the year 1971.
Under the University Statute the appellant was to appear in part II Examination in April 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 2nd April, 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
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.
It appears that on the basis of this undertaking he was allowed to appear at the Part II Examination on May 19, 1973.
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 persuing the application form rejected the petition in limine.
The appellant then filed an appeal to the Vice Chancellor of the University on September 26, 1973 which was also rejected on November 3, 1973.
In between it appears that the appellant had been prosecuted for offence under ss.
He remained under suspension till August 23, 1972, when he was reinstated.
The intimation was sent by the University vide their letter dated November 17, 1972.
There after, another numberice was displayed on the numberice board on r April 16, 1973, according to which the petitioner was falling short of attendance by 46 lectures.
Consequently, he attended the lectures in Part I. So far as Part II is companycerned, the petitioner didnt attend the requisite number of lectures.
A companyy of this letter is appended as Annexure R.1 to this affidavit.
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.
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 taken 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.
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 form that the appellant bore a good moral character.
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 3 1972 and there after he is attending his duties in School.
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.
376, 366 and 363 I.P.C. and was suspended during the period when the case was going on against him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
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.
A long companynter affidavit has been filed by the respondent of which some paragraphs are extracted below Para 4 of the writ petition is rebutted.
The University of Kurukshetra was running law classes for three years Course 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.
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.
On June 26, 1973 the respondent informed the appellant that since his percentage was short in Part I his candidature stood cancelled.
In April 1972 the petitioner appeared in the annual examination of Part I but failed in three subjects, namely, Legal Theory, Comparative Law and Constitutional Law of India Subsequently he was promoted to Part II which he joined in the year 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 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 reasons.
947 of 1975.
Kapil Sibal and S. K. Gambhir for the appellant.
1039 of 1974.
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.
The students were to appear in six papers each year.
The appellant was a teacher in the Government High School, Dumarkha in the District of Jind Haryana .
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.
As a result, he was suspended.
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 be announced.
The facts of the present case lie within a very narrow companypass and only two short points of law have been raised before us by Mr. Kapil Sibbal learned companynsel for the appellant.
K. Nandy for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. What appears to have been a clear case of refusal of admission to the appellant or the cancellation of his candidature at the proper time has been companypletely bungled and destroyed by the inherent inconsistency and seemingly companytradictory stand taken by the respondent and lack of proper vigilance on the part of the Head of the Department of Law.
As such, the averment in the writ petition that he attended his lectures according to the rules is absolutely false.
