Back
1976 Supreme(Ori) 72
High Court Of Orissa
R. N. Misra And K. B. Panda, JJ.
PRASANT PATTAJOSHY - Appellant
Versus
PRINCIPAL, LINGARAJ LAW COLLEGE - Respondent
Original Jur. Case 922 Of 1976
Decided On : 11/01/1976
B.B.RATH, P.PALIT
The right to study in a public educational institution is not absolute and is subject to regulation and appropriate control, including the refusal of admission to undesirable students.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - ADMISSION - CANCELLATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT TO STUDY - DISQUALIFYING ANTECEDENTS - INTEREST OF INSTITUTION - DISCRETIONARY REMEDY - WRIT JURISDICTION - PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - ADMISSION OF STUDENT WITH CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS - CANCELLATION OF ADMISSION WITHOUT HEARING - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INTEREST OF INSTITUTION - EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was admitted to the Pre-Law class of the Bachelor of Law Degree Course for the 1976-77 session at Lingaraj Law College, a public educational institution maintained at State expenses. After attending lectures for about a month, he received a communication from the Principal cancelling his admission. The Principal claimed that the petitioner had not disclosed prior to his admission relevant and material facts relating to his conduct, including a conviction for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and five pending criminal cases involving moral terpitude.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had not suppressed any facts and that the Principal had acted in the interest of the institution in cancelling the admission. The Court held that the petitioner's antecedents were such that any Principal interested in maintaining appropriate discipline and order within his college would legitimately feel tempted to keep out a student with petitioner's antecedents from his institution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Principal's cancellation of the petitioner's admission without affording him an opportunity of being heard violated the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner's antecedents constituted a disqualification for admission? 3. Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to quash the Principal's order and restore the petitioner to the College?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirements of natural justice depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the petitioner's antecedents were such that even if he had been given an opportunity to be heard, it is unlikely that the Principal's decision would have been different. Therefore, the denial of natural justice did not prejudice the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's antecedents, including a conviction for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and five pending criminal cases involving moral terpitude, constituted a disqualification for admission. 3. In the greater interests of the institution, the Court should not intervene by exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the Principal's order and restore the petitioner to the College.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ application, holding that the Principal's cancellation of the petitioner's admission was valid and that the Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere.
R. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER applied to the Principal Lingaraj Law College located at Berhampur, for admission to the Pre-Law class of the Bachelor of Law Degree Course for the 1976-77 session. Petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and was selected for admission. On payment of Rs. 105/-he was duly admitted to the pre-Law class on 26-7-1976 and started attending to the lectures regularly thereafter. He received a communication from the Principal on 23-8-1976 running to the following effect:-- "on further consideration, admission allowed to you into Preliminary law class, vide Receipt No. 27580 dated 26-7-1976 is cancelled. . . . . . . . . " the fees collected from the petitioner were refunded by a cheque and the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission were returned (vide Annexure 2 ). Petitioner challenges this Act of the Principal as grossly violative of the rules of natural justice and denying the petitioner the right to study in a college maintained at the expenses of the State exchequer.
( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit, the Principal of the Law College has claimed that the petitioner had not disclosed prior to his admission relevant and material facts relating to his conduct nor had he disclosed the fact that he was accused of a charge of murder and in the trial he has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, in addition to the said conviction, petitioner is undergoing trial in six different criminal oases, as detailed in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit. It is further asserted toy the Principal that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner of Southern Division reported against the petitioner on the 'basis of his antecedents and on the basis of these materials, the Principal was satisfied in the interest of the institution to cancel the admission of the petitioner.
( 3 ) PETITIONER has filed a rejoinder to support his original stand.
( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the Lingaraj Law College maintained by the berhampur University is a public educational institution maintained at State expenses and every citizen has a right subject to appropriate restrictions and control to be admitted into the college for study. There is no dispute that the petitioner possesses requisite qualification for admission and had duly been admitted into the college. There is equally no dispute that without affording any opportunity of being heard, the Principal cancelled the admission of the petitioner. Nor is there any dispute that the petitioner was tried on a charge of murder and has been convicted for a lesser offence and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and this conviction is now assailed in an appeal- pending before this Court. There is no dispute on the side of the petitioner that at the relevant time petitioner was accused of criminal charges in six cases and one of them has in the meantime terminated in his favour. It is thus clear that the petitioner has a conviction to his credit and he is undergoing trial in five more criminal cases.
( 5 ) THERE is no force in the stand of the Principal that the petitioner had made any suppression of facts. Mr. Palit for the petitioner rightly contends that the petitioner furnished all particulars as required of him sand for not saying that he had a conviction to his credit or that he was being tried on criminal charges in several cases, petitioner cannot be accused of suppressing material facts. An application form has been prescribed and certain documents are required to be appended to the application when made. It is not the case of the Principal that the application form provided for information regarding conviction or pending criminal charges. There is, therefore, no support for the plea that petitioner can be accused of suppression of facts.
( 6 ) RELYING on a series of authorities, Mr. Palit for the petitioner claims, in the circumstances indicated above, that the order of cancellation of admis-sion which seriously affects th
