CYRIAC JOSEPH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in this writ petition were students of Jamia Millia Islamia,respondent in the writ petition. They were pursuing their studies in differentcourses. Disciplinary action was taken against them and in accordance with thedecision of the Discipline Committee, the Vice-Chancellor expelled them from theuniversity for one academic year (1997-98) and a campus ban was imposed onthem for the said duration with immediate effect. On expiry of the period ofexpulsion the petitioners sought re-admission in the academic session 1998-99. Since the respondent refused to re-admit the petitioners in the courses which werebeing undergone by them prior to the above mentioned expulsion, the petitionershave filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent University togive admission to the petitioners in the respective courses. ( 2 ) LT. Gen. Zaki (Retd.), Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia has filed anaffidavit in reply to the notice issued to show cause why the petition be notadmitted, For a proper appreciation of the stand of the respondent it is necessaryto quote the following paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the Vice-Chancellor. "2. I respectfully say and submit that the present case falls to be viewed in a farwider macro perspective and in light of the effect/ramifications of its decision oneway or the other on the larger interests of the student community in general, ratherthan being viewed merely as a case of 4 individuals students rusticated for acts ofindiscipline for a given period who now seek readmission upon expiry of suchperiod. So as to properly convey the rationale behind and basis for decliningreadmission to the petitioners (and indeed to some other such students), it isimportant to set out some background facts. 3. It is unfortunate that over a period of time, Jamia Millia Islamia, which has aglorious history, came to suffer from a process of creeping denigration leading tofrequent disturbances and indiscipline on the Campus. Undue relaxations, uncalledtor condonation, non-adherence to rules, favouritism and nepotism began toendangerthe health of the University and its academic standards and goals. ONE of the worst symptoms and manifestations of the malady erupted on thecampus in May, 1997 following a judgment of this Hon ble Court striking downreservations in favour of certain categories of candidates for admission to courses. Unrest and indiscipline openly manifessed itself in various unhealthy tones. Politicians,interlopers, anti-social elements, land-sharks joined in to give fillip to the disturbances. ONE of the worst symptoms and manifestations of the malady erupted on thecampus in May, 1997 following a judgment of this Hon ble Court striking downreservations in favour of certain categories of candidates for admission to courses. Unrest and indiscipline openly manifessed itself in various unhealthy tones. Politicians,interlopers, anti-social elements, land-sharks joined in to give fillip to the disturbances. Law and order observance of rules and regulations took a back seat. The Universityadministration became supine and indolent. Academic and even administrativefunctioning of the University was paralysed with strikes, gheraos, bandhs andphysical intimidation becoming the order of the day. The law of the jungle came toprevail on the Campus. The Annual Examinations had to be postponed for anindefinite period and it appeared that 1996-97 may have to be declared a null yearin the University academic calendar. THIS is the situation which prevailed when the deponent came to be appointed asvice-Chancellor of the University by the President of India and joined as such on 30/06/1997. 4. I respectfully, humbly and with all humility submit that all actions of the deponentas the principal executive and academic officer of the Respondent University havesince been aimed and focused at putting the University back on its rails,restoringdiscipline, inculcating respect tor and spirit of due observance of rules, improvingacademic and administrative functioning of the University by appropriate reviewand revision of Ordinances, rules and regulations and endeavouring to instil a spiritof pride in genuine pursuit and imparting of academic knowledge and improvementof academic standards. 5. To start with, the deponent invited and interacted with various groups ofacademic and administrative staff and students to analyse the chaotic situation andbring about a semblance of law and order on the Campus. I found on free and frankdiscussions that the majority of staff and students were not only willing but evenkeen to extend co-operation for restoring the academic functioning of the Universify. Many of the misguided were open to persuasion and came to realise that it was intheir own interest to stand and succeed on their own merit. It was indeed some antisocial and undesirable elements both from within and outside the University whowere inciting, misguiding and even intimidating others to participate in protests/strikes. It become necessary, in order to restore and maintain a conductiveacademic environment, to take strict action against those who indulged in or incitedviolence and indiscipline. 6. It was indeed some antisocial and undesirable elements both from within and outside the University whowere inciting, misguiding and even intimidating others to participate in protests/strikes. It become necessary, in order to restore and maintain a conductiveacademic environment, to take strict action against those who indulged in or incitedviolence and indiscipline. 6. Appropriate remedial steps had, therefore, to be taken to ensure that the vastmajority of students who were genuinely interested in pursuit of their academicstudies were not held to ransom by undesirable elements. Deterrent action by wayof rustication/campus ban was accordingly taken against those involved in incidentsof physical violence, intimidation or other grievous acts of indiscipline. 7. At that point of time, the University administration headed by the Vice-Chancellor believed that by the commencement of the academic session 1998-99the situation and environment on the Campus may improve to a degree where suchstudents could be readmitted. However, it transpires that even at this point of timethere prevails a fragile environment of law and order. Sinister efforts continue to bedeliberately made by land mafia and anti-social elements who stand to gain andthrive on disturbed environment by provoking students to raise unwarranted demandsand undermining peace and discipline. Extra care has necessarily to be taken tothis delicate juncture to ensure that peace returned continues without interferenceor disruption. It is imperative in order to ensure stability that the safeguard ofkeeping out those with tainted record be maintained for the time being. Keepingthose imperatives in view, the University administration headed by the deponentdecided not to admit/readmit those with tainted record of indiscipline, the petitionersfall in this category. The decision is purely by way of preventive measure tomaintain discipline and safeguard academic careers of thousands of continuingstudents and not a punitive measure by way of disciplinary action and punishment. 8. The deponent respectfully submits that Statute 31 of the Statutes of theuniversity embodied in the Schedule to the Jamia Milla Islamia Act. 1988, whichdeals with maintenance of discipline among students of the University confers onthe Vice-Chancellor powers which are preventive as also powers by way ofimposing punishment/penalties. Power of preventive action flows from the generalityof his powers relating to discipline under Clause (1) of Statute 3: Clause (1) and (3) of Statute 31 are extracted hereunder for convenient reference:- 31. 1988, whichdeals with maintenance of discipline among students of the University confers onthe Vice-Chancellor powers which are preventive as also powers by way ofimposing punishment/penalties. Power of preventive action flows from the generalityof his powers relating to discipline under Clause (1) of Statute 3: Clause (1) and (3) of Statute 31 are extracted hereunder for convenient reference:- 31. MAINTENANCE OF DISCIPUNE AMONG STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY: (1) All powers relating to discipline and disciplinary action in relation to studentsshall vests in the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor ). (3) Without prejudice to the generality of his powers relating to the maintenance ofdiscipline and taking such action in the interest of maintaining discipline as mayseem to him appropriate, the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor) may, in theexercise of his powers, by order, direct that any student or students be expelled orrusticated, for a specified period, or be not admitted to a course or courses ofstudy in a Department or an Institution of the University for a stated period, or bepunished with fine for an amount to be specified in the order, or be debarred fromtaking an examination or examinations conducted by the University or a Departmentor an Institution for one or more years, or that the results of the student or studentsconcerned in the examination or examinations in which he or they have appearedbe cancelled. WHILE interpreting similarly worded Ordinances of the University of Delhi in Narendersingh Vs. University of Delhi and others, 199811 AD (Delhi) 321, this Hon ble Courtobserved that Clause ( 1 ) "clearly recognises the generality of the Vice-Chancellor spowers relating to the maintenance of discipline as may seem to him appropriate. "it was held that powers under Clause (1) were not restricted or circumscribed byprovision pari materia with Clause (3)of Statute 31 of Jamia Milla Islamia. I respectfully reiterate that the decision not to grant admission/readmission to thosewith tainted record of indiscipline is applicable and has been applied generally tosuch students as a preventive measure in the wider interests of the University as awhole and the thousands of continuing existing students in particular. The sameshould not be viewed as or considered to be by way of disciplinary action in anyindividual case (s ). 9. The sameshould not be viewed as or considered to be by way of disciplinary action in anyindividual case (s ). 9. The four petitioners in the present writ petition have in terms admitted that theywere rusticated from the University and Campus ban was imposed on them forhaving indulged in acts of gross indiscipline, it is pertinent here to note their respective acts of indiscipline:-Mohd. Zareeq Khan (Petitioner No. 1):mohd. Zareeq Khan (Petitioner No. 1 physically assaulted and beat up a student (Rehanali)at 12. 45 a. m. (past midnight) on 28. 7. 97. This had been preceded bytwo earlier reported assaults on Rehan Ali in which the first petitioner had been involved. Naseem Ahmad Lari (Petitioner No. 2) and Khursheed Anwar (Petitioner No. 3)along with 2 others physically assaulted and beat up a student (Asaf Ali) on 8. 4. 97and subsequently gheraod, intimidated and forced the Proctor to sign letter dated10. 4. 97 purporting to withdraw show-cause Notice. Earlier an F. I. R. 95/97 Date29. 1. 1997 under Sections 308/506/34 Indian Penal Code was registered by the police againstpetitioner No. 3 and another. Yet another FIR No. 178/97 u/s 323/506/34 Indian Penal Code dt. 25. 2. 97 was registered by the police against the Petitioner No. 2 and 3 and two others. MOHD. Ali (Petitioner No. 4) along with 3 others physically assaulted a student (Mohd. Asif Khan) on 8. 4. 97 and subsequently gheraoed the Proctor and hisdeputies, misbehaved with them and forced the Proctor to sign a letter withdrawingshow-cause Notice. In a subsequent incident Mohd. Ali misbehaved with and usedabusive and filthy language at and against the Provost, Wardens and Securityincharge on 6. 10. 97. Earlier in August, 1997, he had been implicated as anassailant in an incident of stabbing of a student during run up to the Student s Unionelection. 10. The deponent respectfully and humbly submits that it is only after cartfulassessment and consideration of the delicate and fragile peace on the Campus thatit was decided that readmission and reinduction of students with such credentials;at this juncture is fraught with grave risk of jeopardising the academic environmentand interests of thousands of students and, thus, highly inadvisable. It is not onlythe deponent but the entire Discipline Committee of the University with includes alldeans, Principals, Librarian and Protector who deliberated on the subject (includingon representations submitted by the petitioners) and decided not to grant readmission. 11. It is not onlythe deponent but the entire Discipline Committee of the University with includes alldeans, Principals, Librarian and Protector who deliberated on the subject (includingon representations submitted by the petitioners) and decided not to grant readmission. 11. I say that the allegation that the petitioners have been subject to discriminatorytreatment and that others rusticated alone with when have been readmitted, is falseand baseless. The petitioners have not cited any instance of readmission of anysuch student. I say that the same yardstick has been applied to all such studentsand no similarly placed student has been readmitted. In case, unwitting by some oversight, any such student has been readmitted, the petitioners may supplyrelative particulars so that the deponent may personally examine as to how (if at all)this may have occurred and take appropriate action. " ( 3 ) THE main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is thatthe petitioners were already punished for the alleged acts of indiscipline byexpelling them from the University for one academic year (1997-98) only hence onexpiry of the period of expulsion they are entitled to be restored to the positionwhich existed before the expulsion and, therefore, they are entitled to be readmittedto the respective courses which were being undergone by them. According to thelearned counsel, by denying readmission to the course concerned, the petitionerswere given yet another punishment for the same acts of indiscipline for whichdisciplinary action was taken and punishment was imposed. It is contended thatthe action of the respondent in imposing such a second punishment is illegal,unauthorised and without competence. However, the contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondent is that the decision to deny readmission to thepetitioners is not part of the earlier disciplinary action which culminated in theexpulsion of the petitioners from the University for one academic year. Thedecision not to admit the petitioners is a fresh and independent decision taken bythe respondent in the larger interests of the University as a whole and of theexisting students in particular. I find that the above contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondent. is supported by the averments in the affidavit of thevice-Chancellor. The impugned action of denying admission/readmission to thepetitioners is independent of the disciplinary action already taken against thepetitioners. I find that the above contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondent. is supported by the averments in the affidavit of thevice-Chancellor. The impugned action of denying admission/readmission to thepetitioners is independent of the disciplinary action already taken against thepetitioners. As stated by the Vice-Chancellor, the denial of admission/readmissionto the petitioners is not another punishment for the misconduct or indiscipline whichled to the expulsion of the petitioners for one academic year and it is only apreventive measure to maintain discipline and safeguard the academic career ofthousands of students. Hence the question is whether such denial of admission/readmission of a student as a preventive measure to maintain discipline andsafeguard academic career of another students is legal and authorised. ( 4 ) THE respondent has relied on Clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 of the Statutesof the University embodied in the Schedule of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. Clauses (1) and (3) of Statute 31 have been quoted in paragraph 8 of the affidavitof the Vice Chancellor extracted above. In view of Clauses (1 ) and (3) of Statute31 there cannot be any doubt that the Vice-Chancellor has the power to direct thata student be not admitted to a course. It is well settled that a candidate has novested right for admission to a course in aneducational institution and that theauthorities of the institution have the right to refuse admission to a candidate onrelevant and valid grounds. The question is whether the said power to refuseadmission can be exercised while considering the admission of a student who,having completed one year or more of a course, seeks admission/promotion to thenext year of the same course. Admittedly the petitioners were expelled from theuniversity while the were already undergoing a course and had completed one ormore years of the course concerned. They are seeking admission to the sameyear of the course to which they had been admitted/promoted at the beginning ofthe academic year 1997-98. Hence the case of the petitioner is similar to the caseof a student who, having completed one or more years of acourse, seekspromotion/admission to the next year of the same course. They are seeking admission to the sameyear of the course to which they had been admitted/promoted at the beginning ofthe academic year 1997-98. Hence the case of the petitioner is similar to the caseof a student who, having completed one or more years of acourse, seekspromotion/admission to the next year of the same course. Therefore, the questionis whether astudent who had already been admitted to a course can be refusedadmission/promotion to the next year of the course on the ground that he has atainted record of indiscipline and by way of preventive measure to maintaindiscipline and safeguard the academic career of other students. In my view theprovisions in Clause (1) and (3) of Statute 31 of the Statutes confer ample powerson the Vice-Chancellor to refuse admission to such a student on the abovementioned ground. Again in my view the said power was exercised by the Vice-Chancellor in this case for sufficient and justifiable reasons. The Vice-Chancellorhas explained in his affidavit the situation which prevailed in the respondentuniversity in the past and the situation which prevails at present. Earnest effortsare being made to restore normalcy, discipline and academic standards in theuniversity and to prevent recurrence of indiscipline, violence and criminal acts. Thevice-Chancellor has explained how the larger interests of academic life in thecampus and the interest of other students out-weigh the individual interest of thepetitioners. The Vice-Chancellor has also stated that the decision to deny admission/readmission to the petitioners was taken not by the Vice-Chancellor alone but alsoby the entire Discipline Committee of the University which included all Deans,principals, Librarian and Proctor. In view of the acts of indiscipline committed byeach of the petitioners stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the Vice-Chancellor,it cannot be disputed that the petitioners have a tainted record of indiscipline andthat their presence can be-potential and serious threat to the maintenance ofdiscipline and peace on the Campus. Though it is sad that the petitioners will belosing the opportunity to complete the course, considering the larger interests ofthe University and the welfare of the other students of the University I am notinclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the respondent. Violence andcriminal acts have now become very common in educational institutions and theyhave to be crushed with an iron hand in the larger interests of the society. Violence andcriminal acts have now become very common in educational institutions and theyhave to be crushed with an iron hand in the larger interests of the society. Studentsshould not be allowed to remain under the impression that those indulging inviolence and criminal acts can get away with no loss or damage to themselvesafter inflicting serious losses and damage to others and jeopardising the career ofthousands of other students. The situation has reached such a dangerous stage that any leniency shown by authorities of educational institutions will undermine thewelfare and future of innocent, peace loving and illustrious students. Educationalauthorities seldom show the required Tirmness and courage while dealing with sucha situation. Such failures on the part of the educational authorities have contributedto the deterioration of discipline and academic standard in educational institutions. Hence when some body shows the courage and commitment to set things right,the Court should not directly or indirectly frustrate the effort. Any interference bythe court on technical grounds or out of sympathy and compassion will demoralisethe authorities who take strong action to prevent and suppress indiscipline andviolence on the campus. Hence even if there could be some doubt regarding thepower of the respondent to deny admission/readmission to the petitioners onexpiry of the period of expulsion, I am not prepared to exercise my discretionaryjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. I say so with a sense of grief but with the consolation that I am constrained to sayso in the larger interests, welfare and career of thousands of innocent studentswho are not before me but whose innocent and anxious faces continue to hauntme. ( 5 ) IN the writ petition the petitioners have stated that some of the students whohad been rusticated along with them were given readmission by the respondent. The said statement in the writ petition has been denied in paragraph 11 of theaffidavit of the Vice-Chancellor, Even otherwise I am of the view that therespondent is competent to consider the case of each student separately on itsown merit depending on the gravity and number of the acts of indiscipline. Sincethe petitioners have not given any specific instance of discriminatory treatment it isnot possible for this court to consider the allegation that the petitioners have beensubjected to hostile discrimination, especially in view of the respondent s denial ofsuch allegation. Sincethe petitioners have not given any specific instance of discriminatory treatment it isnot possible for this court to consider the allegation that the petitioners have beensubjected to hostile discrimination, especially in view of the respondent s denial ofsuch allegation. ( 6 ) IN view of the factual and legal position stated above, I hold that the writpetition is devoid of merit and that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in thewrit petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .