# Rashi Kesh v. Veer Bahadur Singh Pooruvanchal University and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 534
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-05-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3365 of 2007
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rashi-kesh-v-veer-bahadur-singh-pooruvanchal-university-and-others-41652
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
Indian-Art.
226Cancellation of M.Com. Degree as well as
the registration of research Scholar-on
the ground after M.B.A. 2002-petitioner
got registration for Ph.D. Course from
Purvanchal University-submits thesis in
the year 2005-during this period persue
the M.Com. Degree and also worked as
teacher
in
self
finance
institution
affiliated to the university-appointment
was duly approved-consequently the
executive
council
takes
impugned
decision-without
any
notice
or
opportunity of hearing-held-principle of
Natural Justice violated- order quashed-
with
liberty
take
fresh
decision
in
accordance with law after given full
opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

Held: Para 26 & 27

In my opinion, before taking the above
decisions,
the
Academic
Counsel
(Respondent no. 2) was bound to give
notice
to
the
petitioner,
and
after
affording
reasonable
opportunity
of
hearing to the petitioner, any decision in
the matter should have been taken. The
Academic Council has evidently taken
the above decisions in total disregard of
the principles of natural justice.

In the circumstances, the decision of the
Academic Council (respondent no. 2)
taken in its meeting held on 9.12.2006 in
regard to the petitioner under Agenda -
Item No. 3 under the heading "Other
points raised with the permission of the
Chairman"
whereby
the
petitioner's
M.Com. Degree as well as his registration
for Ph.D. have been cancelled, cannot be
sustained, and the same is liable to be
quashed, and the matter is liable to be
remanded to the Academic Council for
deciding the same afresh after getting
reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner.

## Text

534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
modified and the claimants/appellants are
held entitled to:

(i) interest on damages as awarded
by the Tribunal under Section 48-A of the
Act; and
(ii) interest on compensation at the
rate 9% p.a. for one year of possession
and at the rate 15% p.a. thereafter.

17. However, in view of the
reference pending before the Supreme
Court, liberty is given to the respondents
to apply for review, if necessary, in
accordance with the view ultimately
expressed by the Apex Court in the
pending reference of Smt. Leelawati
Agarwal (supra).

18. Parties to bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3365 of 2007

Rashi Kesh

...Petitioner

Versus
Veer Bahadur Singh Poorvanchal University,
Jaunpur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Saksena
Sri S.M. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Tiwari
S.C.

Constitution
of
Indian-Art.
226Cancellation of M.Com. Degree as well as
the registration of research Scholar-on
the ground after M.B.A. 2002-petitioner
got registration for Ph.D. Course from
Purvanchal University-submits thesis in
the year 2005-during this period persue
the M.Com. Degree and also worked as
teacher
in
self
finance
institution
affiliated to the university-appointment
was duly approved-consequently the
executive
council
takes
impugned
decision-without
any
notice
or
opportunity of hearing-held-principle of
Natural Justice violated- order quashed-
with
liberty
take
fresh
decision
in
accordance with law after given full
opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

Held: Para 26 & 27

In my opinion, before taking the above
decisions,
the
Academic
Counsel
(Respondent no. 2) was bound to give
notice
to
the
petitioner,
and
after
affording
reasonable
opportunity
of
hearing to the petitioner, any decision in
the matter should have been taken. The
Academic Council has evidently taken
the above decisions in total disregard of
the principles of natural justice.

In the circumstances, the decision of the
Academic Council (respondent no. 2)
taken in its meeting held on 9.12.2006 in
regard to the petitioner under Agenda -
Item No. 3 under the heading "Other
points raised with the permission of the
Chairman"
whereby
the
petitioner's
M.Com. Degree as well as his registration
for Ph.D. have been cancelled, cannot be
sustained, and the same is liable to be
quashed, and the matter is liable to be
remanded to the Academic Council for
deciding the same afresh after getting
reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The petitioner has filed the
present Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, interalia,
praying for quashing the decision of the
Academic
Council
dated
9.12.2006
2 All] Rashi Kesh V. Veer Bahadur Singh Pooruvanchal University and others
535
(Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition)
regarding
the
cancellation
of
the
petitioner's
M.Com
degree
and
his
registration of Ph.D.

2. From the averments made in the
Writ Petition, it appears that the petitioner
passed his B.B.A (Bachelor of Business
Administration) from Veer Bahadur Singh
Poorvanchal University- respondent no.1
in the year 2000. The petitioner passed
M.B.A. Examination in the year 2002.

3. The petitioner applied for and was
registered as Ph.D student under Dr. G.C.
Jaiswal, the then Reader in Master of
Finance Control Department of the
respondent no.1- University on 12.7.2003.
Copy of the application of the petitioner
has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ
Petition.

4. Clause (2) of the declaration made
by the petitioner in the application was as
under:

^^2. eSa ;g Hkh lR; fu"BkiwoZd ?kks"k.kk djrk gwWa fd
fo'ofo|ky; ds fu;e @ ijfu;e @ v/;kns'kksa ds vUrxZr
eSa fdlh iw.kZdkfyd 'kS{kf.kd ikB~;dze esa bl vFkok vU;
fdlh fo'ofo|ky; esa lkFk&lkFk v/;;ujr ugha jgwWaxk A ;fn
,slk ik;k tk; rks mi;qZDr d`R;ksa ds fy, esjk 'kks/k iathdj.k
@ 'kks/k mikf/k fujLr dj nh tk; A**

5. It is, interalia, further averred in
the Writ Petition that the petitioner was
appointed as Lecturer in the Department
of Business Administration in Ideal
Department of Management Science,
Mirzapur with the approval of the
respondent no. 1-University; and that the
said institution is affiliated to the
respondent no.1 -University and is being
run under the Self -Financing Scheme;
and that the petitioner worked as Lecturer
from 1.5.2004 to 30.4.2005.
6. It is, interalia, further averred in
the Writ Petition that in the year 2004, the
petitioner appeared as a Private Candidate
for M. Com. Part -1 Examination and he
passed the same and thereafter, the
petitioner appeared in M. Com. Final
Examination in the year 2005 again as a
Private Candidate of the respondent no.1University which he passed in First
Division and secured Ist Position for
which he was awarded Gold-Medal.

7. It is, interalia, further averred in
the Writ Petition that after completing the
research, the petitioner submitted his
Ph.D. Thesis to the Academic Section of
the
respondent
no.1-University
for
evalution on 24.12.2005.

8. It is, interalia, further averred in
the Writ Petition that on 12.1.2007, the
petitioner learned that Academic Council
-respondent no. 2 had cancelled the
petitioner's M. Com. Degree as well as his
registration for Ph.D. and consequently,
the petitioner's Ph.D. Thesis was not to be
sent for evaluation.

9. Copy of the Minutes of the
Meeting of the Academic Council dated
9.12.2006 has been filed as Annexure No.
6 to the Writ Petition.

10. Agenda-Item No.3 under " Other
points raised with the permission of the
Chairman" of the Academic Council deals
with the case of the petitioner.

11. It is, interalia, stated in the
decision taken by the Academic Council
in respect of the said Agenda- Item no.3
that
the
Academic
Council
has
unanimously decided that M. Com.
Degree of the petitioner as well as
registration of the petitioner for Ph.D., be
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
cancelled, and the thesis submitted by the
petitioner be not got evaluated, and
information in this regard be published in
the
Newspapers,
and
the
other
Universities be also informed in this
regard.

Counter Affidavit on behalf of the
respondents has been filed.

12. In the said Counter Affidavit, it
is, interalia, stated that the petitioner, after
getting the M.B.A. Degree in the year
2002, was registered with the respondent
no.1-University in the Month of July,
2003 for Ph.D. Course; and that the
petitioner
submitted
his
thesis
on
24.12.2005; and that the petitioner had
also completed M. Com. Course in the
duration of 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2005; that the
petitioner was also working as a Teacher
on contract basis in the Self -Finance
College, namely, 'Ideal Academy of
Management
Sciences'
,Shiwala,
Mirzapur affiliated with the respondent
no. 1-University from May, 2004; and
that for the said appointment , necessary
approval was sought by the College from
the respondent no.1-University which was
granted by the letter dated 29.4.2004 (
Annexure CA 1 to the Counter Affidavit
); and that the petitioner had, thus,
obtained two degrees and was also doing
job during the same period; and that thus,
the petitioner had violated his undertaking
given in the application form for
registration for Ph.D.

13. I have heard Sri P.N.Saxena,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
S.M.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents,
and perused the record.

14. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior
Counsel has stated that no Rejoinder
Affidavit is proposed to be filed on behalf
of the petitioner, and the matter may be
heard for final disposal.

15. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior
Counsel submits that before cancelling
the petitioner's M. Com. degree and his
registration for Ph.D., no notice or
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner to present his version.

16. It is further submitted by Sri
P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel that
the petitioner had not violated the
undertaking given by him, as the
petitioner passed M. Com. (Previous)
Examination in the year 2004 and M.
Com. (Final) Examination in the year
2005 as a private candidate, while the
undertaking given by the petitioner
prohibits the petitioner from perusing
study in any full-time educational course.

17. In reply, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that
as there was violation of the undertaking
given by the petitioner on the face of it,
the cancellation of M. Com. Degree of the
petitioner as well as his registration for
Ph.D. was fully justified. He further
submits that for getting Ph.D., a person is
required to devote his full-time in the
work of research for at least twenty
months, and the said person is deemed to
be a student as provided in the Ordinances
of the respondent no. 1-University.

18. In rejoinder, Sri P.N. Saxena,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner reiterates his submissions made
earlier.
2 All] Rashi Kesh V. Veer Bahadur Singh Pooruvanchal University and others
537
19.

I
have
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, and perused the record.

In paragraph No. 14 of the Writ
Petition, it is stated as under:-

"14. That on 12.01.2007, petitioner
learnt that Academic Council, respondent
no.2
has
cancelled
the
petitioner's
M.Com.
Degree
as
well
as
his
Registration for Ph.D. and consequently,
petitioner's Ph.D thesis was not to be sent
for evaluation. Petitioner had absolutely
no notice or knowledge of the said
proceeding or decision of the Academic
Council. Petitioner has succeeded in
obtaining minutes of meeting of Academic
Council dated 09.12.2006 which shows
that meeting of the Academic Council was
held on 09.12.2006, there was no item
regarding cancellation of petitioner's M.
Com. Degree or his Registration for
Ph.D. on agenda but this item with regard
to petitioner was taken up by the
Academic Council with permission of
Chairman of Academic Council /Vice
Chairman and Academic Council without
any notice or opportunity of hearing or
considering
relevant
ordinances
cancelled the petitioner's M. Com. Degree
and his Registration for Ph.D."

20. Reply to the averments made in
paragraph no. 14 of the Writ Petition, has
been given in paragraph no. 20 of the
Counter Affidavit, which is as under :

"20. That in reply to the contents of
paragraph no. 14,15, and 16 of the Writ
Petition, it is submitted that the petitioner
has obtained the aforesaid degree and
submitted
his
thesis
in
absolute
contravention
of
his
undertaking,
therefore, the same was rightly cancelled.
Rest of the averments are matters of
record can be verified. It is further
submitted that the action under challenge
is in the direction of his undertaking thus
no opportunity of hearing is required."

21. From a perusal of the above
quoted paragraph no. 14 of the Writ
Petition, it is evident that specific
averment was made that no notice or
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner before the Academic Council
took its decision in respect of the
petitioner in the
meeting held on
9.12.2006 cancelling the petitioner's M.
Com. Degree as well as his registration
for Ph.D.

22. A perusal of paragraph no. 20 of
the Counter Affidavit shows that the said
averment made in paragraph no. 14 of the
Writ Petition has not been specifically
denied in the said paragraph of the
Counter Affidavit. In fact, paragraph no.
20 of the Counter Affidavit states that no
opportunity of hearing is required.

23. From the above, it is clear that
after the petitioner had completed his M.
Com. Degree and got Gold Medal for
standing first in the respondent no.1-
University his M. Com. Degree was
cancelled by the Academic Council in the
meeting held on 9.12.2006 by its decision
regarding Agenda-Item No. 3 under the
heading "Other points raised with the
permission of the Chairman".

24. Again, after completing his
research, the petitioner had submitted his
thesis for Ph.D. on 24.12.2005, but his
registration for Ph.D. was cancelled by
the Academic Council in the above
meeting, and it was decided that the thesis
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
of the petitioner would not be sent for
evaluation.

25. No notice or opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioner before
taking the above decisions which vitally
affect the petitioner's academic career.

26. In my opinion, before taking the
above decisions, the Academic Counsel
(Respondent no. 2) was bound to give
notice to the petitioner, and after
affording
reasonable
opportunity
of
hearing to the petitioner, any decision in
the matter should have been taken. The
Academic Council has evidently taken the
above decisions in total disregard of the
principles of natural justice.

27. In the circumstances, the
decision
of
the
Academic
Council
(respondent no. 2) taken in its meeting
held on 9.12.2006 in regard to the
petitioner under Agenda -Item No. 3
under the heading "Other points raised
with the permission of the Chairman"
whereby the petitioner's M.Com. Degree
as well as his registration for Ph.D. have
been cancelled, cannot be sustained, and
the same is liable to be quashed, and the
matter is liable to be remanded to the
Academic Council for deciding the same
afresh after getting reasonable opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner.

28. In view of the above, the Writ
Petition deserves to be allowed, and the
same is, accordingly, allowed. The
decision of the Academic Council taken
in
its
meeting
held
on
9.12.2006
(Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition)
regarding Agenda-Item No. 3 under the
heading " Other points raised with the
permission of the Chairman" whereby the
petitioner's M. Com. Degree and his
registration
for
Ph.D.,
have
been
cancelled, is quashed, and the matter is
remanded to the Academic Council
(Respondent no. 2) for deciding the same
afresh in accordance with law after
affording reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner.

29. It is made clear that this Court
has not considered the case of the
petitioner on merits, as the same is to be
considered by the Academic Council.

30. On the facts and circumstances
of the case, there will be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4990 of
2009

Varnit Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Quashing
F.I.R.-offence under Section 2/3 U.P.
Gangesters & Anti Social Activities Act,
1986-petitioner
involve
in
theft
of
Motorcycle gang-argument that use of
force must be there-while in theft of
Motorcycle-nothing like that-No ground
for quashing FIR made out-hence arrest
can not be stayed on interim mesurepetition dismissed.