Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1192 (DEL)

Mohd. Kashif v. Union of India

2018-05-01

REKHA PALLI

body2018
ORDER : Rekha Palli, J. W.P.(C) 3773/2018 1. At the outset learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the Institute had to be impleaded only through the Registrar and, therefore, makes an oral request for deletion of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 from the array of parties. At the oral request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are deleted from the array of parties. Amended memo of parties be filed during the course of the day. Mr. Neeraj Verma, learned Counsel, enters appearance on behalf of respondent/Institute and prays for six weeks time to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit. Time as prayed for is granted. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 17.07.2018. C.M. No. 14957/2018 Vide the present application, the petitioner has prayed for a stay of the decision dated 6.2.2018 taken in the 19th Board of Governor Meeting of respondent No. 2, which decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.2.2018. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been a bona fide student of B.Tech. course at the respondent No. 2/Institute, since the year 2012 and had been diligently undergoing the said course, despite having remained under medical treatment for some time. He submits that on 21.8.2017, when the petitioner was a student of 6th semester, an FIR under Sections 392/397/34, IPC was registered against him and two others with the Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely impleaded in the said case and his name has been included in the FIR only because of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused. 2. Mr. Garg further submits that pursuant to the registration of the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 30.8.2017 and while in judicial custody, he was granted parole to appear in the 6th semester examinations held in September, 2017. He submits that the petitioner has duly passed the 6th semester exams and was subsequently granted regular bail by this Court, vide its order dated 2.2.2018 passed in Bail Application No. 2404/2017. 3. Mr. He submits that the petitioner has duly passed the 6th semester exams and was subsequently granted regular bail by this Court, vide its order dated 2.2.2018 passed in Bail Application No. 2404/2017. 3. Mr. Garg submits that pursuant to bail being granted by this Court, the petitioner was released from custody only on 5.2.2018 and on 6.2.2018 itself, the respondent No. 2 took a decision to suspend him, without even giving him any opportunity to explain the true and correct facts. He further submits that the said suspension order was communicated to the petitioner only on 23.2.2018, whereafter the petitioner has made various representations to the respondent No. 2 to revoke the suspension order and to permit him to attend classes and appear in the examination, so as to enable him to complete his B.Tech. degree, but has not received any response from the respondents till date. 4. Mr. Garg submits that upon his passing 6th semester though the petitioner was initially permitted to appear in the first examination of 7th semester, but was subsequently not allowed to appear in the remaining examinations on the ground of shortage of attendance. He further submits that while on parole, the petitioner had duly attended regular classes from 30.12.2017 to 15.1.2018 and again upon being granted bail attended classes from 6.2.2018 to 23.2.2018, when the impugned order suspending him was communicated to him. He, thus, submits that the petitioner was always desirous of attending classes but, could not do so after 23.2.2018 only because of the impugned suspension order. 5. Mr. Garg contends that since the respondents are seeking time to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit, the operation of the impugned order be stayed and the petitioner be permitted to appear in the 8th semester examination, which is beginning today itself. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has already completed 3 years of his B. Tech degree and, in case, he is not permitted to appear in the ensuing 8th semester exams, despite having attended a substantial number of classes of 8th semester and his being presently on bail, grave and irreparable loss would be caused to his academic career. 7. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the facts noted hereinabove, the operation of the impugned order dated 6.2.2018 deserves to be and is stayed. 7. In my considered opinion, keeping in view the facts noted hereinabove, the operation of the impugned order dated 6.2.2018 deserves to be and is stayed. I am further of the view that subject to the outcome of the present petition, the petitioner ought to be permitted to appear in the forthcoming 8th semester exams by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is accordingly directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the ensuing 8th Semester Exams for B.Tech. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 assures the Court that, they will take all requisite steps to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to appear in the 8th examination from 3.5.2018 onwards. Needless to say, merely because the petitioner is being permitted to appear in the 8th semester examinations no special equities would be created in his favour and his result would remain subject to the further orders passed by this Court. The application stands disposed of.