# Billu v. District Magistrate decided on

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-04-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15450 of 2002
- **Bench:** R.R. Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/billu-v-district-magistrate-decided-on-39928
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Act 5 (3) 29 (f) (g) 33 and Statute 54 (i)
(4) Constitution of India, Article 226-

Education-
Petitioner
debarred
from
appearing in the Final Year Examination-
due to shortage of attendance statute
prescribed 75% attendance mandatory
for Regular Student- vires of the Statute
not
challenged-
Court
declined
to
interfere.

Held- Para 7

The Ordenance made by the University
laying down objective test of 75%
combined
attendance
for
regular
students in Engineering regular course of
study does not require interference by
this court. The pragmatic decision taken
by respondents no. 2 and 3 debarring the
petitioner on the basis of statutory
2 All] Mohd. Yaqub Vs. V.C. of Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh and others
425
objective
test
of
75%
combined
attendance laid down in Chapter XVII of
Ordinance
on
examination
of
Engineering course of study to which
category
he
belonged
cannot
be
interfered
with
on
the
idealistic
suggestion
of
learned
counsel
for
petitioner taking lenient view to save the
career of petitioner. It is held that where
public
interest
is
pitted
against
individual interests, this Court would
prefer public interest in comparison to
individual interest. In the present case it
goes without saying that after obtaining
Engineering Degree from Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
424
IPC had been registered. Petitioner's gun
licence was cancelled but he has not
deposited his gun due to which a case
under section 25/30 Arms Act has been
registered.

4. Thus it is alleged that petitioner
has committed several crimes and he is
trying to obtain bail. It is also alleged that
petitioner is getting Gunda Tax collected
from the people in the locality. He has
threatened the villagers that if anybody
gave evidence against him the people will
be burnt and will be killed. Hence the
District Magistrate was satisfied that
petitioner's activities are pre-judicial to
public order.

5. We are satisfied that the petitioner
has disturbed public order and not merely
law and order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
then submitted that the petitioner was in
jail
since
15.6.2001
and
his
bail
application has been rejected by the court
of sessions on 26.7.2001 as stated in
paragraph 21 of the petition. Hence it is
alleged that the detention order is illegal.

In our judgment in Habeas Corpus
Petition No. 38005 of 2001 Karesh Pal @
Billu v. District Magistrate decided on
25.1.2002 we have discussed this aspect
of the matter and have held that even if a
person is in jail a detention order can be
passed. We have relied on the Supreme
Court decision in Ahmad Nassar v. State
Tamil Nadu 2000 (1) JIC (SC) 221 for
the proposition that a valid detention can
be passed even when the detenue has not
applied for bail.

For the reasons given above there is
no force in this petition and it is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.4.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.R. YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15450 of 2002

Mohd. Yaqub

...Petitioner
Versus
Vice
Chancellor
of
Aligarh
Muslim
University, Aligarh and others

 ...Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.A. Khan
Sri Mohd. Soud

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dilip Gupta
Sri R.S. Ram
S.C.

Aligarh Muslim University - Chapter 17 of
Act 5 (3) 29 (f) (g) 33 and Statute 54 (i)
(4) Constitution of India, Article 226-

Education-
Petitioner
debarred
from
appearing in the Final Year Examination-
due to shortage of attendance statute
prescribed 75% attendance mandatory
for Regular Student- vires of the Statute
not
challenged-
Court
declined
to
interfere.

Held- Para 7

The Ordenance made by the University
laying down objective test of 75%
combined
attendance
for
regular
students in Engineering regular course of
study does not require interference by
this court. The pragmatic decision taken
by respondents no. 2 and 3 debarring the
petitioner on the basis of statutory
2 All] Mohd. Yaqub Vs. V.C. of Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh and others
425
objective
test
of
75%
combined
attendance laid down in Chapter XVII of
Ordinance
on
examination
of
Engineering course of study to which
category
he
belonged
cannot
be
interfered
with
on
the
idealistic
suggestion
of
learned
counsel
for
petitioner taking lenient view to save the
career of petitioner. It is held that where
public
interest
is
pitted
against
individual interests, this Court would
prefer public interest in comparison to
individual interest. In the present case it
goes without saying that after obtaining
Engineering Degree from Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.R. Yadav, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Sri M.A. Khan and Sri Dilip
Gupta representing respondents. Perused
the averments made in the writ petition.

2. The instant writ petition is filed
by the petitioner for issuing a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents no.
2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to appear
in B. Tech. Final Year Examination of the
year 2002 which has already started with
effect from 4.4.2002. It is brought to my
notice by the learned counsel representing
respondent no. 2 and 3, Dilip Gupta that
the examination of three papers relating to
B. Tech. Final Year Examination of year
2002 in which the petitioner intends to
appear has already completed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel
for both sides. I am of the view that
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh in
order to maintain its academic excellence
has prescribed 75% attendance for regular
students. In the instant case, indisputably
the petitioner was a regular student,
therefore, he can be eligible to appear in
B. Tech. Final Year Examination of the
year 2002 provided he has undergone
regular course of study in the University
or an Institution maintained by it for the
period
specified
in
the
Academic
Ordinance of the University.

4.4. For ready reference the relevant
Ordinance XVII of the Aligarh Muslim
University,
Aligarh
is
reproduced
hereinbelow :

Chapter XVII

EXAMINATION
(Act 5 (3), 29 (f) 29 (g), 33 and Statute 5
A (4) (1))

1.
Examinations of the University,
other than the Doctorate examination
shall be open to the following categories
of candidates-

(a) regular students, i.e. candidates who
have undergone a regular course of study
in
the
University
or
n
institution
maintained by the University for a period
specified for that course of study.

(b) Private candidates, as defined in
clause 4 below :

(c) Ex- students as defined in clause 5
below.

2.2. A candidate shall be deemed to have
undergone a regular course of study for
the period specified for the course to be
eligible to appear at the examination, if he
has fulfilled requirements as given in the
chart below :
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
426

Faculty
Attendance

Lectures
Practical
Tutorials/
Seminars
Sessional
requirement
Arts
75%
75%
75%
As
per
new
Academic
Ordinances
Social
Sciences

Science

Commerce

Engineering
(B.Sc.,B.E.
& M.Sc.)
75%
Combined

Diploma
75%

Law
75%

75%

Medicine
(i) All post
graduate
 Diploma

80%

80%

(ii) M.B.B.S. (I,II & combined 75% in Practical,
Demonstrations and/or Final Professionals)
Clinics in each subject.
(iii)
other
courses
75%
75%

Theology
(B.Th.&
M.Th.)
75%

5. From perusal of the aforesaid
Ordinance
it
is
crystal
clear
that
Examinations of the University, other
than the Doctorate examination shall be
open to the categories of candidates
enumerated therein provided a regular
student has undergone a regular course of
study in the University or an institution
maintained by the University for a period
specified for that course of study. Under
the aforesaid Ordinance the petitioner is
required to complete 75% combined
attendance
to
appear
in
B.
Tech.
Examination. Indisputably from perusal
of paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is
evident that the petitioner has completed
only 56% attendance as a regular student
upto February, 2002.

6. I am of the view that the
respondents have committed no error in
debarring the petitioner to appear in B.
Tech. Examination, 2002 due to shortage
of attendance. It is pertinent to observe
here that neither the petitioner has laid
foundation challenging the vires of
statutory Academic Ordinance of the
University quoted hereinabove nor the
learned counsel for petitioner raised any
argument in this regard questioning the
vires of the said statutory Academic
Ordinance of the University. It is held that
aforesaid statutory Academic Ordinance
prescribing 75% combined attendance in
lectures and practical for regular students
to
appear
in
the
examination
of
Engineering Course of study is just, fair
and reasonable to achieve the laudable
object
of
academic
excellence
of
Engineers who happened to obtain degree
of Engineering from Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh. To my mind to
maintain efficiency in Engineering Course
of study combined attendance of 75% is
essential. In case on hand it is not
disclosed
what
is
percentage
of
attendance of the petitioner in lectures and
what is percentage of his attendance in
practical. It is to be imbibed by all of us
that
attending
Universities
itself
is
integral part of education and a student
enhances his knowledge by mixing and
interacting
with
Lecturers.
Readers,
Professors and his fellow students. The
prescribed
attendance
in
statutory
Academic Ordinance has tendency to
increase
the
healthy
completion
of
learning
amongst
students
of
the
University taking their course of studies
with all seriousness.
2 All] Mohd. Yaqub Vs. V.C. of Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh and others
427
7. There is yet another reason to
arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. In my
considered opinion the Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh is an autonomous
Corporate Body and it is free to take
statutory academic decision prescribing
objective test of eligibility for regular
students to appear in examinations. The
decision taken by the University allowing
some
students
to
appear
in
the
Examination whereas debarring some one
to appear in such examination is required
to be founded on some objective test. In
the Academic Ordinance the University
has laid down objective test for regular
students to appear in the Examination and
according to objective test laid down in
the Academic Ordinance of the University
only those regular students who have
undergone prescribed regular course of
study in the University or in an Institution
maintained by the University are entitled
to appear in the Examination. The
aforesaid statutory decision has been
taken by the expert Academicians of
Aligarh Muslim University who are well
versed in educational matters and have
expertise knowledge and experience in
such matters. The Ordinance made by the
University laying down objective test of
75% combined attendance for regular
students in Engineering regular course of
study does not require interference by this
Court. The pragmatic decision taken by
respondents no. 2 and 3 debarring the
petitioner on the basis of statutory
objective
test
of
75%
combined
attendance laid down in Chapter XVII of
Ordinance on examination of Engineering
course of study to which category he
belonged cannot be interfered with on the
idealistic suggestion of learned counsel
for petitioner taking linient view to save
the carrier of petitioner. It is held that
where public interest is pitted against
individual interest this Court would prefer
public interest in comparison to individual
interest. In the present case it goes
without
saying
that
after
obtaining
Engineering Degree from Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh. The petitioner would
engage himself in some employment,
trade or calling affecting the lives of the
public at large. To my mind lives of
public at large is dearest in comparison to
individual career of the petitioner based
on inefficient learning in Engineering
Course of study due to shortage of
attendance.

8. Bottom line argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner before
this court is that respondent no. 2 has
permitted Firoj Anjum who obtained 60%
attendance,
Manish
Varshney
who
obtained 59% attendance and Mohd.
Javed
Ansari
who
obtained
60%
attendance upto February, 2002 whereas
the
petitioner
who
obtained
56%
attendance upto February 2002 is not
allowed to appear in the aforesaid
Examination.

9. 9 Suffice is to say in this regard
that the petitioner who has undergone a
regular course of study of only 56% is not
comparable to the aforesaid regular
students who have obtained 60% or 59%
attendance and after February, 2002 they
continued to attend the classes. This court
has reason to believe that they have
completed 75% combined attendance,
therefore, allowed to appear in the
examination by respondents no. 2 and 3
and an argument contrary to it, as
suggested by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, is not acceptable to me and it is
hereby repelled. After close examination
of the material available on record I have
no hesitation to hold that the decision
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
428
taken by respondents debarring the
petitioner to appear to B. Tech. Final Year
Examination of the year 2002 due to
shortage of his combined attendance is
within the scope of authority conferred
upon them under statutory Ordinance of
examinations in various disciplines of
learning in the University and it is also
most reasonable for the reasons discussed
hereinabove.
I
decline
to
issue
a
prerogative writ making the decision
taken by respondents debarring the
petitioner to appear in the B. Tech. Final
Year . Examination, 2002 due to shortage
of his combined attendance to be
ineffective.

10. It is frankly conceded by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has not made any allegation of
malafide against respondents no. 2 and 3.
In absence of any allegation of malafide
against respondents no. 2 and 3, the
argument raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner that respondents no. 2 and 3
have practiced discrimination with the
petitioner does not arise. It is well to
remember that there is presumption that
an act done by an authority is bona fide
unless contrary is proved. In the present
case the petitioner fails to prove contrary.

11. For the reasons what have been
discussed hereinabove, no ground is made
out for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution.

Consequently,
the
instant
writ
petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD MAY 24, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 47 of 1998

Ramesh Chandra Singh and others

...Appellant
Versus
Sri Amar Nath Singh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri Tarun Verma
Sri Anil Bhusan
Sri R.C. Srivastava
Sri Manoj Srivastava
Sri M.M.Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B. D. Madhyan
Sri Khurshed Alam
Sri Satish Mandhyan
Sri Vijai Sinha
Sri M.I. Jafri
Sri Lalji Sinha

Constitution of India, Article 226- Writ
petition challenging order of cancellation
of selection process of candidate in
R.P.F.- selected candidate who have
already joined not impleaded - No-
effective order can not be passed.
Held - Para 27

The contention of Sri Anil Bhushan that
the candidates who have been selected
pursuant to the advertisement no. 1 of
1996 ought to have been impleaded and
were necessary parties in the writ
petition, in absence of which, no relief
could have been granted also cannot be
said to be without any merit. In the
present
case
the
respondent
writ
petitioners had challenged the issuance