HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2024 (M/S)

Vishal Kumar ….......Petitioner Vs.

Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University and another ……..... Respondents Present : The petitioner appeared in-person.

Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Amicus Curiae.

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to an Office Order dated 30.09.2024, issued by the respondent no.2/the Director, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Swami Ram Teerth Campus, Badshahi Thaul, District Tehri Garhwal (“the University”). By it, based on the recommendation of Proctorial Board, the petitioner has been debarred to take admission in L.L.B.

Third Semester or in any other course in the University.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The petitioner in-person would submit that he was never given any show cause notice prior to debarring him from taking admission in L.L.B. Third Semester or in any other course of the University. He would submit that he may be permitted to appear in the Fourth Semester Examination.

4. In fact, this matter was listed yesterday when arguments were heard. Thereafter, this Court realized that some more assistance is required in the matter. The Court, therefore, requested Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate to assist the Court, to which, he agreed.

5. Mr. Harshit Sanwal submits that the Proctorial Board had not recommended that the petitioner be debarred from taking admission in LLB Third Semester, instead it had recommended that the entry of the petitioner be prohibited in the University and disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against him. He further submits that whenever such an action is contemplated, which is quasi-judicial in nature, the authority concerned need to issue a show cause notice to the person concern. But, in the instant case, it is submitted that neither the Proctorial Board Report dated 24.09.2024 was given to the petitioner nor was he ever given any notice so as to explain his conduct and straightway the impugned office order has been issued, which is against the law. He would submit that even otherwise the respondent no.2, the Director of the University under the Central University Act, 2009 (“the Act”) is not empowered to pass an order of the expulsion. Such powers are vested in the Vice Chancellor under Clause 28(4) of the Statute of the University, which is in the Second Schedule to the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that during the Students Union Elections of 2024-25, on 24.09.2024, the indiscipline and indecent conduct of the petitioner was noticed; he obstructed the election process; senior faculty/member of the Proctorial Board counselled him. Thereafter, police was called and FIR was lodged. In such circumstances, show cause notice is not required. He would also raise the following submissions:-

(i) Under Clause 28(5) of the Second Schedule of the Act, the Principal of the University has all such discretionary powers over the students in their respective colleges as may be necessary for the proper conduct of such College. It includes debarring the students from taking admission in any of the courses.

(ii) The Proctorial Board had recommended that the admission of the petitioner be restrained and the disciplinary proceedings may be done.

7. A student has been debarred from taking admission in the ongoing professional course by the impugned order. Not only this, he has been debarred from taking admission in any other course in the University. According to the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 it was done, based on the Proctorial Board recommendations, which is Annexure No.3 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. According to Proctorial Board Minutes, the entry of the petitioner in the premises of the University was recommended to be completely restrained and further, disciplinary proceedings were recommended. This recommendation cannot be read