SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Ori) 351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
VINEET SARAN, B.R. SARANGI, JJ.
Vishal Viswakarma and others - Petitioner
Versus
Ravenshaw University and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) NO. 6722 OF 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s. A.A. Das, B.K. Parida, A.N. Pattnayak, S.A. Pattnaik and M. Panda
For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Pami Rath and J.P. Behera

Headnote:1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 226 and 227 - Students of Ravenshaw University - Clash between two groups of students - On enquiry report of Discipline Committee, punishment imposed which has been confirmed in appeal - Writ - A student, who prosecutes his education in an eductional institution, has to maintain discipline - A student has to possess civily responsible behaviour, which helps to maintain social order and contributes to the preservation, if not advancement, of collective interest of society at large - It is expected from the petitioners, who are nonetheless students of Ravenshaw University and prosecuting their studies in an educational institution to get education, have to maintain ' discipline' so as to project themselves as good citizens of India - Directions issued. (Paras - 11 to 14).

        2. WORDS AND PHRASES - 'Student' - A student means, a person who is admitted to an educational institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the Attendance Register thereof and undergoing a course of studies for obtaining a degree, diploma or other academic distinction duly instituted. (Para - 5).

       

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

Petitioners no.1 to 4 are the students of 3rd year B.Com., 2nd year B.A. Political Science (Hons.), 2nd year B.A. Sociology (Hons.) and 2nd year B.Sc., ITM respectively of Ravenshaw University, Orissa, Cuttack and continuing their respective courses residing in the hostel. On the basis of the incident that took place on 21.11.2016 because of clash between two groups of students, who are the boarders of Lalitgiri hostel and New hostel, both groups submitted their complaint against each other. Consequentially, the authority caused an inquiry by constituting discipline committee, which submitted its report that the scuffle among the students/boarders of Lalitgiri hostel and New hostel was due to exchange of words and remarks to each other. In the report dated 15.02.2017, it was observed that the petitioners had involved and instigated the fighting and they were leading the groups. Consequentially, punishment of detention of four semesters and cancellation of hostel seats against Ajay Behera, Srinu Kumar Patra and Md. Asfak Ali was awarded and detention of two semesters against Vishal Viswakarma, Trailokyanath Upadhya and Srikanta Malik. After the recommendation of the discipline committee, the Vice Chancellor/Competent Authority, in exercise of power under clause-152 of the statute, imposed punishment on the petitioners vide office order dated 03.03.2017 holding that the petitioners were guilty for the alleged involvement in the clash between Lalitgiri hostel and New hostel on 21.11.2016.

So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has been detained for two consecutive semesters along with cancellation of his hostel seat with immediate effect till 31.12.2017 and his studentship was suspended during the said period and he was also not allowed to enter into the University premises till 31.12.2017. It was further directed that he can enroll and complete his remaining semesters after 31.12.2017. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, similar punishment has also been imposed on him. As regards petitioners no.3 and 4, they have been detained for four consecutive semesters along with cancellation of their hostel seats with immediate effect till 31.12.2018 and their studentship stood suspended during the said period and also not allowed to enter into the University premises till 31.12.2018. It was further directed that they can enroll and complete the remaining semesters after 31.12.2018. Against such imposition of punishment, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Executive Council to reconsider the same, but in turn the Executive Council in its 31st meeting held on 25.03.2017 upheld the decision of the Vice Chancellor in the matter of punishment inflicted on the petitioners and consequentially issued office order on 28.03.2017. Against imposition of such punishment by the Vice Chancellor dated 03.03.2017 in Annexure-3 series and confirmation thereof in appeals by the Executive Council under Annexures-4 and 5 series dated 28.03.2017, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

2. Mr. A.N. Pattnayak, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that so far as petitioners no.1 and 2 are concerned, the punishment imposed against them have already been exhausted and the said period has already been over by 31.12.2017. But in the event the order of punishment remained against them, it would affect their career. So far as petitioners no.3 and 4 are concerned, the punishment imposed against them is continuing and the same is going to be over on 31.12.2018. It is contended that clash between the two groups of students arisen at the spur of the moment without any intention thereon which led to indiscipline in the campus itself and for that they are regretting themselves and as such the punishment so imposed would affect the career of the students. It is further contended that the petitioners owe responsibility by maintaining peace and tranquility in the campus itself being the

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top