Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Divyanshu Bhardwaj, Son of Sri Siyaram Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
The Patna University through its Vice-Chancellor, Ashok Rajpath, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5023 of 2018
Decided On : 04-04-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Mr. Ashish Sinha, Mr. Akash Keshaw, Mr. Shakib Aiyaz, Mr. Yash Mathur
For the Respondent: Mr. S. N. P. Sinha, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Mr. Digvijay Singh, Mr. Ujjwal Bhushan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with principles of natural justice and the university's Statute for the Students’ Union in matters related to the cancellation of candidature and admission.
Headnote:
Election Dispute - University Election - UGC Directives - [Article 22 of the Statutes, Clause 9 of the Ordinance] - The court discussed the UGC directives and the university statutes and ordinances in relation to the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature for the post of President of the Students’ Union. The court highlighted the principles of natural justice and the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the election for the post of President of the Patna University Students’ Union and was declared elected. The Vice-Chancellor subsequently cancelled the election based on an Inquiry Committee’s report, without providing the petitioner with the report or an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature and admission was unsustainable due to a gross violation of principles of natural justice and lack of compliance with the university's Statute for the Students’ Union. The court also held that the Vice-Chancellor's order was beyond jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues included the breach of principles of natural justice, the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor, and the validity of the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature and admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature and admission was unsustainable due to a gross violation of principles of natural justice and lack of compliance with the university's Statute for the Students’ Union. The court also emphasized the need for the Vice-Chancellor to proceed in accordance with the provisions under the Statute and to provide the petitioner with due opportunity of explanation and hearing.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the court set aside the impugned order. The court directed the Vice-Chancellor to proceed in accordance with the provisions under the Statute and to provide the petitioner with due opportunity of explanation and hearing.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner had contested the election for the post of President of the Patna University Students’ Union, held in February, 2018. The results of the election were declared on 18.02.2018. He was declared elected to the post of the President. These facts are not in dispute. After declaration of the results of the elections, there is a practice/system of issuance of certificate as returned candidate, which has not been done immediately after the results were declared.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, subsequently, by office order, dated 13.03.2018, has cancelled the election of the petitioner to the post of President, which has been put to challenge in the present writ application. Following is the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor, which is at Annexure- P/20 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4:-
“1. President
The enquiry committee report on the allegations leveled against Divyanshu Bhardwaj, newly elected President, was thoroughly examined and it is found very apparently that his candidature for the post of president has no academic arrear and from that point of view, his candidature was valid. However, his candidature is not tenable because he took admission in the Himalayan University, Itanagar in the same academic session (2014-17) during which he was the student of B. N. College, Patna University, Patna. It is clear cut violation of the UGC directives vide public notice no. F. No. 1-6/2007 (CPP-II) dated 15.01.2016. Hence, his election to the post of president stands cancelled. Initiatives will immediately be taken to cancel his admission in Patna University on the basis of above facts. At the same time, initiatives will be taken to seek information from the Himalayan University, Itanagar to known how the university admitted him in 2014-17 session while he was Patna High Court CWJC No.5023 of 2018(6) dt.04-04-2018 3/18 given C.L.C. from B. N. College, Patna in 2016.”
(Emphasis is added)
4. What is evident from the order under challenge is that it is based on an Inquiry Committee’s report on the allegation levelled against the petitioner. This is an admitted fact that the said Inquiry Committee’s report was, at no point of time, made available to the petitioner. It is also evident from the impugned order that his candidature has been found to be not tenable on the ground that he had taken admission in the Himalayan University, Itanagar in the same academic session 2014-17 during which he was a student of B. N. College, Patna University, Patna which, according to the Vice- Chancellor, was in violation of the UGC directives, issued vide Public Notice No. F.No. 1-6/2007(CPP-II), dated 15.01.2016. While cancelleing the candidature of the petitioner to contest the election by the impugned order, the Vice-Chancellor has observed in the order that initiatives immediately be taken to cancel his admission in the Patna University on the basis of the said facts and initiatives would also be taken to seek information from the Himalayan University, Itanagar to know as to how the University had admitted him in academic session 2014-17, while he was given a college leaving certificate from B. N. College, Patna, in 2016.
5. It is the petitioner's case, which is not in dispute, that at, no point of time, any notice was given to him by the Vice-Chancellor or any other functionary of the University that the University, on the basis of any complaint, intended to cancel the petitioner’s admission in the University or cancel his candidature to contest the election for the post of President of the Students’ Union.
6. Be it noted that for being eligible to contest the election of the Students’ Union in the University, a candidate has to be a bona fide regular student of the University Department/a constituent colleges.
7. The petitioner, on the strength of his admission in M. A. Political Science of the Departmental of the University, had contested the election. He had t
