JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Discipline in academic institutions specially those entrusted with responsibility of imparting higher education is of prime importance. At the same time any and every lapse by a student either due to immaturity or childish stubbornness should not be visited with such serious consequence which may result in wastage of academic life and ruination of brilliant career. 2. On 26th Feb. 1980 the proctor of the University submitted a report against petitioner that he accused him that he was forcing the students to submit statement in writing and thereby involving them in departmental politics. According to report the speech was out of tune as was never expected from a student of the University. On 26th June 1980 petitioner received communication from Registrar that the Vice-Chancellor had suspended him from the roll as he was involved in criminal cases and also misbehaved with a teacher. On 30th June petitioner received a show cause notice for acting in irresponsible manner unbecoming of a student of the University. It was mentioned that act of petitioner was most unbecoming leading to gross indiscipline misconduct and misbehaviour with Dr. J. D. Pant, Reader Department of Geology. The petitioner was asked to explain within 48 hours. He submitted the explanation. By letter dated 1st July he was informed that if he so desired he may appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 3rd July. According to petitioner he did reach on 3rd July for appearing but he was prevented by the Registrar. It is denied in counter-affidavit. Any way nothing turns on it. The petitioner did not appear. The Registrar communicated decision of committee on 4th July 1980 that he was found guilty of the charge levelled against him and the committee resolved that petitioner should submit unqualified written apology to the Vice-Chancellor for the act of indiscipline and if he did not do so the matter shall be brought before committee again. Fine of Rs. 50/- was also imposed. Against this decision of committee, petitioner gave notice under S. 36A(2) of Aligarh Muslim University Amendment Act for referring dispute to Arbitration. By letter dated 28th Oct. 1980 petitioner was informed that Vice-Chancellor has nominated one of the professors as a nominee of the Executive Council on the tribunal of Arbitration under S. 34(2) of the Act. It is admitted that dispute is still pending before tribunal. By letter dated 28th Oct. 1980 petitioner was informed that Vice-Chancellor has nominated one of the professors as a nominee of the Executive Council on the tribunal of Arbitration under S. 34(2) of the Act. It is admitted that dispute is still pending before tribunal. In meantime the Disciplinary Committee on 13th Dec. 1980 resolved that as petitioner did not submit unqualified apology he ceased to be regular student and was debarred from admission or re-admission to the University forever. He was also refused permission to appear at B.A. honours examination. Both these orders were challenged by this petition. Although petition was admitted in Jan. 1981 but no interim order was granted. The petitioner, therefore, approached the University again for granting permission to appear at B.A. examination. It was put up before the committee of examination which by its resolution dated 26th Oct. 1981 rejected it. Another attempt was made by petitioner in 1982. This was allowed and by letter dated 8th Dec. 1982 the petitioner was informed that he was allowed to take his B.A. examination without any prejudice to the resolution of Disciplinary Committee passed in Dec. 1980. The petitioner appeared and secured first division. He then approached this Court in April 1984 to direct opposite parties to admit him in M.A. (Political Science). He also applied for admission in Aug. 1984. By letter dated 4th Oct. 1984 petitioner was informed that he had been provisionally selected for admission in M.A. (Political Science). The petitioner deposited fee etc. on 18th October and was admitted on 19th Oct. 1984. On same day proctor of the University wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor that form of petitioner had been inadvertently cleared by his office as petitioner had not still submitted his unqualified apology despite resolution of 1980, therefore, his form may be cancelled and admission be revoked. On 20th Oct. 1984 Registrar intimated petitioner that his admission of Session 1984-85 had been revoked by the Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect. This order has also been challenged. By supplementary affidavit filed by University during course of hearing the reason for revoking admission is stated in para 16 as under : "That thereafter when this fact came to the knowledge of the Vice-Chancellor he called for the entire record relating to the petitioner. The Vice-Chancellor looked into the entire records of the case. By supplementary affidavit filed by University during course of hearing the reason for revoking admission is stated in para 16 as under : "That thereafter when this fact came to the knowledge of the Vice-Chancellor he called for the entire record relating to the petitioner. The Vice-Chancellor looked into the entire records of the case. The following facts emerged after looking into the records : (a) The petitioner had been detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act in the year 1976. (b) Three separate criminal cases under Ss. 396/436 IPC, 147/392/436 IPC and 147/148/426/295 IPC were registered against him in connection with riots at Sambhal in Feb. 1976. (c) The petitioner was also involved in the disturbances which had occurred in the University in Jan. 1981. (d) The petitioner was also detained under the National Security Act in the year 1981 and the Supreme Court had upheld the detention of the petitioner. (e) The petitioner had in his application form stated that a case was pending against him in a Court of law. (f) The Disciplinary Committee in its meeting held on 13th Dec. 1980 decided that the petitioner will cease to be a regular student of the University and be barred from admission or re-admission to the University forever and will not be allowed to reside in a hall of residence of the University." The permission to appear in B.A. examination is explained in counter-affidavit to have been granted on humanitarian grounds. 3. That petitioner is a hot headed person admits of no doubt. Otherwise he could have easily saved his career by tendering unqualified apology to the Vice-Chancellor in 1980. But misguided notions about right and law were so intense in his mind that he withdrew his Vakalatnama from his counsel when he came to know that he has stated on his behalf that he was willing to tender unqualified apology. Normally this Court would not have interfered with exercise of discretion by the University and it was to avoid this, that time was granted to University when this petition was heard earlier to re-examine its decision. But it did not yield any result. 4. Normally this Court would not have interfered with exercise of discretion by the University and it was to avoid this, that time was granted to University when this petition was heard earlier to re-examine its decision. But it did not yield any result. 4. Although it was vehemently argued by petitioner who argued his case in person, that report of proctor in 1980 did not constitute any misconduct and punishment awarded to him was unwarranted, it is not necessary to examine it as the University having adopted attitude of forgive and forget by permitting petitioner to appear in B.A. examination in 1982, committed error in going back and reverting to 1980 position by cancelling his admission of M.A. Even if it would not have the resolution of Disciplinary Committee dated 3rd July 1980 could not have been interfered with it being in exclusive domain of the University to take action against a student for his behaviour with a teacher. Nor the quantum of punishment could be gone into. But this Court is primarily concerned with resolution dated 13th Dec. 1980, by which petitioner was debarred from admission or re-admission in the university. This was done as petitioner had not tendered his unqualified apology. But the committee in taking this view lost sight of fact or it was not appraised that resolution dated 3-7-80 was already subject-matter of appeal before tribunal. The Vice-Chancellor had also nominated one of the professors for it. Therefore, the resolution by which fine of Rs. 50 was imposed and petitioner was asked to submit his unqualified apology being under appeal which had not been disposed of till today the committee was not justified in debarring petitioner from admission or re- admission. At least they should have informed petitioner that as he had not tendered unqualified apology the committee intended to take action against him. The petitioner could have then explained that his appeal was pending. Then once the Vice-Chancellor permitted petitioner to appear in B.A. examination it has to be assumed that he forgave the petitioner as he had suffered much more than he deserved for his misbehaviour with the proctor and did not insist for the unqualified apology. In fact it appears the authorities took such stiff attitude more because of conditional resignation of the proctor. 5. Not only this, even the order revoking petitioner's admission in M.A. appears to be unsustainable. In fact it appears the authorities took such stiff attitude more because of conditional resignation of the proctor. 5. Not only this, even the order revoking petitioner's admission in M.A. appears to be unsustainable. Each and every reason disclosed in supplementary affidavit is either erroneous or did not furnish material for the order dated 20th Oct. 84. Cls. (a) to (d) of para 16 state about involvement in criminal cases or detention under Maintenance of Security Act. All these grounds existed when petitioner was a student of B.A. and was permitted later on to clear it. In respect of resolution dated 13th Dec. 80 it has already been seen that it was passed under misapprehension. Moreover copy of application of petitioner for admission to M.A. has been filed by University with supplementary affidavit. In columns Nos. 4 and 5 of declaration, it was disclosed by petitioner that he was not involved in criminal cases but. they were pending against him. It was also disclosed that a resolution dated 13-12- 80 had been passed against him. This form was checked and scrutinised by various authorities. There was thus complete disclosure of facts. Nothing was concealed. If there was any mistake it was of the University. The petitioner did not obtain admission by fraud. The only inadvertence pointed out by proctor in his letter dated 19th October 84 was failure of petitioner to tender unqualified apology. But this had already been condoned. In any case resolution of 13th Dec. 80 not being in accordance with law it could not have resulted in cancellation of admission. 6. Learned counsel for University vehemently argued that disciplinary action in academic institutions should not be interfered by this Court. No dispute. It is for this reason that it was not considered proper to examine if the disciplinary committee was justified to take action against petitioner on report of proctor. But if the authorities take action against a student under duress as appears in this case because of conditional resignation of the proctor then certainly this Court can examine to ascertain if action was justified. According to the learned counsel for the University, grant of admission of petitioner did not confer any right on him. But if the authorities take action against a student under duress as appears in this case because of conditional resignation of the proctor then certainly this Court can examine to ascertain if action was justified. According to the learned counsel for the University, grant of admission of petitioner did not confer any right on him. It is not necessary to go on all larger questions as once petitioner was admitted in M.A. the principle laid down by Supreme Court in Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 , was squarely applicable. In that case admission granted by the university to a student who was not eligible to take up examination as his attendance was short, was revoked. The Supreme Court quashed the order and directed that his admission could not be revoked, because he having disclosed the entire facts in his application form, the mistake, if any, was of the university in not scrutinising properly. 7. Learned counsel for the university relied on Vijay Kumar Gupta v. Meerut University, 1983 U.P. LBEC 340 : AIR 1983 All 318 and also Atul Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 1983 U.P.LBEC 468 : AIR 1983 All 281 and argued that this Court in these two decisions had distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Kurukshetra University cases and held that this Court should not interfere in discretionary matters. As regards Vijay Kumar Gupta's case the Division Bench found the petitioner was guilty of not disclosing that he was penalised for having. used unfair means and obtained admission by concealing necessary facts. Needless to say that the facts of this case, as mentioned above, are clearly distinguishable. The petitioner had disclosed all material facts and that they were placed before the admission committee. As regards the case of Ajai Kumar Singh, in this case also admission was obtained in reserved category without making full and complete disclosure of the facts. 8. Learned counsel also relied on Cls. 3(a) and 3(b) of Academic Ordinance and S. 35 of University Act and urged that as admission of petitioner in M.A. was provisional, it could be cancelled for any reason by Vice-Chancellor. According to him in any case, power of Vice- Chancellor was unlimited under S.35. He could revoke the order of admission. As regards submission of cls. 3(a) and 3(b), this very Bench had occasion to consider it in another case. According to him in any case, power of Vice- Chancellor was unlimited under S.35. He could revoke the order of admission. As regards submission of cls. 3(a) and 3(b), this very Bench had occasion to consider it in another case. It was held that provisional character of admission does not continue for all time. It comes to an end once the student deposits the fees and is finally admitted. Argument based on S. 35 cannot succeed as on the date when Vice-Chancellor passed order revoking admission of petitioner, there was nothing to justify the same. The order obviously was passed under misapprehension. It need not be repeated that resolution dated 13th Dec. 80 could not have been passed by disciplinery committee and the tendering of unqualified apology having been condoned by Vice- Chancellor, he under mistaken impression revoked the order. It was not a case where Vice-Chancellor had while revoking admission, exercised power because of some indiscipline committed by petitioner but as stated under erroneous impression which in fact did not exist. 9. Before parting with the case, we may observe that we have been unhappy with attitude adopted by petitioner in not tendering unqualified apology to the Vice-Chancellor. He has, however, stated that in future he shall conduct in a manner which shall not give any cause of grievance to authority of the university. We hope he sticks to it. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20th Oct. 1984 communicated to the petitioner cancelling his admission in M.A. (Previous) class for the seasons 1984-85, is quashed. A direction is issued to opposite-parties to permit petitioner to continue his studies in M.A. (Previous) political science. Resolution dated 13th Sept, 80 is not quashed as the Vice-Chancellor himself condoned it. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.