D. Murugesan, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant applied for admission on 7.5.2012 to MA (Persian) Course in the respondent Jamia Millia Islamia University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent university’) for the academic session 2012-2014. He secured 85 marks in written examination and 15 marks in the interview. As against 30 seats, the respondent university received 35 applications including that of the appellant. The appellant, on the basis of the marks, was placed in 21st rank. Going by the ranking, he was entitled to be admitted to the said course. However, he was not selected and only 20 applicants were selected leaving 10 seats vacant.

As against the denial of admission, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition on the ground that the said denial was most illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, unjust, unwarranted and uncalled for. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition finding no merit therein. The learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, noticed that denial of admission was only as a measure of prevention on account of the appellant having committed troublesome and painful acts of indiscipline in the past in the same University and with a view to maintain peace, tranquility and discipline in the respondent university.

2. It is the grievance of the appellant that he was denied admission only for the reason that he had filed a public interest litigation bearing Writ Petition No. 917/2012 (Hamidur Rehman v. Jamia Millia Islamia University & Ors.) against the respondent university for seeking restoration of democracy by way of holding elections suspended in 2006 in the respondent University. It is his further grievance that the denial was because of his further refusal to withdraw the said writ petition even when he was pressurized by the authorities of the respondent university.

3. The submission of Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that except the fact that the appellant had earlier approached this Court against the management of the respondent university by filing a public interest litigation and refused to withdraw the same when he was asked and pressurised, there was no ground for denial of admission. The story of indiscipline on the part of the appellant in the past while he was a student of the same university was only an afterthought and in view of the same, the denial is bad and the respondent university should be directed to admit the student in view of the marks secured by him and the availability of the seats.

4. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent university that the denial of admission is not on the ground that the appellant had earlier approached this Court by filing a public interest litigation. The learned senior counsel would further submit that at no point of time the authorities of the respondent university either asked or pressurised the appellant to withdraw the said writ petition and because the appellant refused to withdraw, he was denied admission. The appellant in fact applied for different courses in the same university and the Vice Chancellor of the university received reports from heads of each of the departments stating that the appellant was offensive and aggressive against the university and he was made his remarks against the Procter of the university saying that a single person had been in the past since long and there has been no change. He had also made scathing remarks on the management as if the management was indulging in malpractices. Only based on those reports and having noticed the past conduct and the aggressive nature of the appellant, the Vice Chancellor was compelled to decide not to admit the appellant to the course in the interest of the students of the institution and the decision was only in order