# Udit Yadav v. U.P. Sainik School Sarojini Nagar Lko

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 1151
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-05-31
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 26942 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/udit-yadav-v-u-p-sainik-school-sarojini-nagar-lko-44354
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

institution - Constitution of India -
limited scope of interference under
Article 226 - more res integra - this
Court is not just a Court of law, but is
also a Court of equity - person who
invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court
is duty-bound to place all the facts
before the Court without any reservation
- well settled that in exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, this Court always keeps in
mind the conduct of the party who is
invoking such jurisdiction
- If the
petitioner does not disclose full facts or
suppresses relevant materials or is
otherwise guilty of misleading the Court,
then the Court may dismiss the action
without adjudicating the matter on
merits. Para - 19,23

Teacher of the School made a complaint
against the petitioner (student) - Disciplinary
Committee of the School, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
his father, found that the petitioner was guilty
of gross misconduct - Committee took a
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lenient view in the matter and recommended
that ''Transfer Certificate' be issued to the
petitioner - recommendation made by the
Disciplinary Committee was accepted by the
Principal of the School - petitioner deliberately
and intentionally concealed material facts and
has tried to mislead the Court . Para - 3,22

HELD:- The petitioner has not approached
this Court with clean hands. He has not only
concealed material facts but has deliberately
and intentionally made a false averment. This
is highly improper. The writ petition was liable
to be dismissed on this ground alone. The
Court has, however, considered the merits of
the case and even on merits, the petitioner
has no case. Para - 31

Writ petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

6 All. Udit Yadav Vs. U.P. Sainik School Sarojini Nagar Lko 1151
non conveniens would be a relevant factor
for the Court to examine whether the
claim should or should not be entertained
for the reason that there is another forum
which is more appropriate. This doctrine
would, however, not be the determinative
factor and in a case where no fraction or
even an infinitesimal part of the cause of
action as arisen within its territorial limits
the jurisdiction of the Court may not be
invoked.

158.
The
aforementioned
propositions broadly set out the contours
with regard to the position of law in
respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. We may add that
though an attempt has been made to cover
the expanse of the precedents which are
available, the discussion in the preceding
paragraphs, is by no means exhaustive, in
view of wide expanse of the scope and the
varying interpretations rendered by the
Courts keeping in view the complexities
which arise in the interpretation of the
scope of the writ jurisdiction of the High
Courts."

18. Taking into consideration the
facts of the case as also keeping in view
the principles regarding cause of action,
territorial
jurisdiction
and
forum
conveniens, we are of the view that the
present writ petition, for payment of due
amount, which in fact has to be paid first
by the opposite party No. 4-Bihar State
Beej Nigam, Bihar to NAFED and
thereafter the petitioner can get the same
from NAFED, is not maintainable before
this Court.

19. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition is dismissed being not
maintainable before this Court.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)06ILR A1151
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Misc. Single No. 26942 of 2017

Udit Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Sainik School Sarojini Nagar Lko
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Dr. V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Lalit Shukla, Devendra Mohan Shukla

(A) Matter of discipline of an educational
institution - Constitution of India -
limited scope of interference under
Article 226 - more res integra - this
Court is not just a Court of law, but is
also a Court of equity - person who
invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court
is duty-bound to place all the facts
before the Court without any reservation
- well settled that in exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, this Court always keeps in
mind the conduct of the party who is
invoking such jurisdiction
- If the
petitioner does not disclose full facts or
suppresses relevant materials or is
otherwise guilty of misleading the Court,
then the Court may dismiss the action
without adjudicating the matter on
merits. Para - 19,23

Teacher of the School made a complaint
against the petitioner (student) - Disciplinary
Committee of the School, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
his father, found that the petitioner was guilty
of gross misconduct - Committee took a
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lenient view in the matter and recommended
that ''Transfer Certificate' be issued to the
petitioner - recommendation made by the
Disciplinary Committee was accepted by the
Principal of the School - petitioner deliberately
and intentionally concealed material facts and
has tried to mislead the Court . Para - 3,22

HELD:- The petitioner has not approached
this Court with clean hands. He has not only
concealed material facts but has deliberately
and intentionally made a false averment. This
is highly improper. The writ petition was liable
to be dismissed on this ground alone. The
Court has, however, considered the merits of
the case and even on merits, the petitioner
has no case. Para - 31

Writ petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs S.B.I. , (2007) 8 SCC
449

2. K.D. Sharma Vs SAIL , (2008) 12 SCC 481

3. Board of High School & Intermediate
Education Vs Bagleshwar Prasad , AIR 1966
SC 875

4. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Vs K.S. Gandhi ,
(1991) 2 SCC 716

5. Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Vs
Rajkishore Tripathi (Dr) , (1977) 1 SCC 279

6. Chairman, J & K State Board of Education
Vs Feyaz Ahmed Malik , (2000) 3 SCC 59

7. Guru Ghasidas University Vs Craig Macleod ,
(2012) 11 SCC 275

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. The U.P. Sainik School, Lucknow
(for short ''the School') is affiliated to the
Central Board of Secondary Education,
New Delhi. The School is run by the U.P.
Sainik School Society with the Chief
Minister,
Uttar
Pradesh
as
its
Chairperson. The main aim of the School
is to prepare the cadets academically,
physically and mentally for entry into the
commissioned ranks of the Defence
Services through the National Defence
Academy.

2. The petitioner was admitted in the
School on 30.04.2012 in class VII for
session 2012-13. In the year 2018, the
petitioner was due to appear in Class XII
Board Examination.

3. On 17.08.2017, Sri N.S. Babu,
English Teacher of the School made a
complaint against the petitioner. The
Disciplinary Committee of the School,
after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and his father, found that
the petitioner was guilty of gross
misconduct. The Committee, however,
took a lenient view in the matter and
recommended that ''Transfer Certificate'
be
issued
to
the
petitioner.
The
recommendation
made
by
the
Disciplinary Committee was accepted by
the Principal of the School and on
18.08.2017 itself the ''Transfer Certificate'
was issued to the petitioner and it was
also uploaded on the website of the
school.

4. The last date for submission of
examination form for Class XII Board
Examination - 2018 was 10.11.2017. On
01.11.2017, just nine days prior to the
said date, the father of the petitioner made
a representation to the Principal of the
School wherein he admitted that the
petitioner was out of school for quite
some time. It was stated that he was
apologetic for the mistake of his son. It
was prayed that keeping in view the
future of the petitioner, the petitioner be
6 All. Udit Yadav Vs. U.P. Sainik School Sarojini Nagar Lko 1153
permitted to appear in the ensuing Board
Examination. The said representation
contained a note / forward by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar,
Lucknow asking the Principal of the
School to consider the said representation
sympathetically. Relevant portion of the
representation is extracted below:

"fo"k;& dSfMV mfnr ;kno iq= Jh
fctsUnz flag 3384 SH dks b.Vj cksMZ ijh{kk rFkk
iz;ksxkRed ijh{kk esa cSBus dh vuqefr ds lEcU/k
esa izkFkZuk i=A

egksn;]

lfou; fuosnu ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dk
iq= dSfMV mfnr ;kno mijksDr fo|ky; esa
d{kk 12 dk Nk= gS fdlh dkj.ko'k fo|ky; ds
f'k{kd ls fookn gks x;k FkkA ftl dkj.k Nk=
lSfud dkQh le; ls fo|ky; ls ckgj gSA
izkFkhZ vius iq= dh xyrh ds fy, {kekizkFkhZ gSA

vr% vkils fouez vuqjks/k gS fd Nk=
lSfud ds Hkfo"; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, cksMZ
ijh{kk esa lfEefyr djkus dh vuqefr iznku
djus dh d`ik djsxsA

izkFkhZ vkidk o lHkh xq:tukas dk
lnSo vkHkkjh jgsxkA

izkFkhZ

 fctsUnz falg F/O mfnr ;kno"

(emphasis supplied)

5. Just four days after the making
of
the
said
representation,
the
petitioner has approached this court by
means of this writ petition seeking a
writ
of
mandamus
directing
the
Principal of the School to allow him to
attend his classes and to permit him to
appear in the Board Examination of
Class XII as a regular student.

6.

Pleadings
have
been
exchanged between the contesting
parties. Sri Devendra Mohan Shukla,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent no. 3 states that he
does not wish to file any counter
affidavit. With the consent of the
counsel for the parties the matter has
been heard and is being finally
disposed of.

7. According to the petitioner the
complaint made by Sri N.S. Babu
against him was absolutely false. In
the writ petition the petitioner has
projected himself to be a meritorious
student. It is alleged that the work and
conduct of the petitioner was always
satisfactory
and
there
was
no
complaint against him. It is on the
strength of the categorical statement
that there was nothing adverse against
the petitioner, except for the false
complaint made by Sri N.S. Babu
against him, that the petitioner has
prayed for permission to attend the
classes and appear in the Board
Examination as a regular student of
the School.

8. In their counter affidavit, the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 have denied all
the material averments made in the writ
petition. It has been inter alia stated that
at the time of his admission, the father of
the petitioner had signed an agreement
which contained a clause to the effect that
if at any time it is found that the cadet has
involved himself in a serious breach of
discipline or has been found repeatedly
involving
himself
in
a
conduct
unbecoming of a cadet in U.P. Sainik
School as determined by the school
authorities, he will be removed from the
school with full penalty; that the averment
that except for the incident of 17.08.2017
there is nothing adverse against the
petitioner
is
absolutely
false
and
incorrect; that after due opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and his father the
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Disciplinary Committee found that the
petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct;
that taking a lenient view of the matter a
decision was taken to issue ''Transfer
Certificate' to the petitioner.

9. In the rejoinder affidavit the
petitioner has reiterated the averments
made in the writ petition.

10. Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in the last term of the school
and the session is already over and in case
the petitioner is not permitted to fill the
examination form of the ensuing Board
examination, one full year of the
petitioner would be lost which, in turn,
would affect the whole career of the
petitioner. The counsel submitted that the
petitioner would not indulge in any
untoward activity in case he is allowed to
appear in the examination as a regular
student of the school.

11. Per contra Sri Lalit Shukla, the
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1
and 2 has supported the action of the
respondents. He has submitted that the
petitioner has not only concealed material
facts but has made a false averment in the
writ petition that the work and conduct of
the petitioner was good and, except for
the incident of 17.08.2017, there is
nothing adverse against the petitioner. In
the circumstances, the counsel submitted
that the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone. The
counsel
has
further
submitted
that
discipline is the most important part of
training in the School and the action
against the petitioner has been taken in
consonance with the principles of natural
justice, after due opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and his father and calls for
no interference from this Court. The writ
petition, according to the learned counsel,
is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

12. It appears, that the whole
unsavoury episode started on 17.08.2017
at about 12.30 hours, when the petitioner
is alleged to have abused and assaulted
Sri N.S. Babu, English Teacher of the
School in the presence of Sri Avi Scott,
History Teacher and Sri Sangeet Mishra,
Laboratory Assistant. This led to the filing
of a complaint by Sri N.S. Babu before
the Principal of the School on the same
day. The relevant portion of the complaint
is extracted below:

"Cadet Udit Yadav School No.
3384 of Class XII-B has committed a
shameful criminal offence of assaulting
me today in the school campus around
1230 hrs. in front of class VII-B.

Cdt Udit Yadav accousted (sic)
me when I was returning after taking
class. The said cadet started hurling
abuses and tried to threaten me with
serious consequences on the pretext that I
have no right to discipline class VII boys
as being a senior most cadet this
responsibility comes under him. When I
scolded
him
for
behaving
in
an
indiscipline manner, he said: "I can set
you right here and now as you don't know
the tradition of the school that senior
cadets rule over everybody." When it was
too much for me to swallow I told him to
leave the place but instead of leaving the
place he pounced on me and grabbed my
shirt
and
started
hitting
me,
but
thankfully two of my colleagues namely
Mr. Avi Scott and Mr. Sangeet Mishra
came to my rescue and the violent
situation was subsided somehow.

You are hereby requested to
take strictest action against the Cdt Udit
6 All. Udit Yadav Vs. U.P. Sainik School Sarojini Nagar Lko 1155
Yadav by rusticating him from the school
with immediate effect in order to set an
example to other cadets and to save this
glorious institution from being ruined.

Though the above mentioned
action requested by me is being decided
with a heavy heart, to save the institution
and for larger interest, the action is
mandatory."

(emphasis supplied)

13. Looking into the seriousness of
the charge, the Principal of the School
entrusted the enquiry to the Disciplinary
Committee of the School on that very day.
On being required, the petitioner appeared
before the Committee headed by the
Headmaster
at
about
2
p.m.
on
17.08.2017 itself. In the presence of the
petitioner, Sri N.S. Babu gave his written
statement in support of his complaint,
which was confirmed by Sri Avi Scott and
Sri Sangeet Mishra. Despite repeated
opportunity, the petitioner refused to give
his explanation. Sri Brijendra Singh, the
father of the petitioner, on being required,
appeared before the Committee on
18.08.2017.
Sri
Brijendra
Singh
acknowledged the fault of the petitioner.
He, however, showed his helplessness in
the matter. He, in fact, went to the extent
of saying that he had no control over his
son. Thereafter, Sri Brijendra Singh left
the school. The information of the said
incident was also given to Sri Brijendra
Pal, an employee of the school and the
local guardian of the petitioner. The
Committee, after taking into account the
evidence
on
record,
came
to
the
conclusion that the petitioner was guilty
of gross misconduct. The Committee took
into account the past record of the
petitioner and then deliberated and
discussed the issue and finally concluded
that the continuance of the petitioner in
the school would neither be conducive to
his future nor to the dignity of the school.
The Committee, however, instead of
recommending
rustication
of
the
petitioner from the school, took a lenient
view of the matter and recommended that
''Transfer Certificate' be issued to the
petitioner. The Disciplinary Committee,
accordingly, submitted its report dated
18.08.2017 to the Principal of the School.
The report is extracted below:

"tkap lfefr dh fjiksVZ

1- fnukad 17 vxLr 2017 dks
yxHkx 1230 cts fo|ky; ds vaxzsth v/;kid
Jh ,u0,l0 ckcw ds lkFk Nk= lSfud mfnr
;kno }kjk ekjihV dh ?kVuk ds laca/k esa
iz/kkukpk;Z ds vkns'kkuqlkj tkWp desVh dh cSBd
iz/kkukpk;Z dk;kZy; esa vijkUg 0200 cts gqbZA

2- mDr cSBd esa Jh ,u0,l0 ckcw o
Nk= lSfud mfnr ;kno dks cqyk;k x;k o
o;ku ntZ djus dh izfdz;k vkjEHk gqbZA Jh
,u0,l0 ckcw us viuk fyf[kr c;ku@izkFkZuk
i= fn;k ftlesa nks vU; xokgks Jh voh LdkWV]
bfrgkl ekLVj ,oa Jh laxhr feJk] iz;ksx'kkyk
lgk;d us Jh ,u0,l0 ckcw ds lkFk gqbZ ?kVuk
dh iqf"V dhA Nk= lSfud mfnr ;kno dks
c;ku ntZ djkus ds fy, cqyk;k x;k ysfdu
dbZ ckj dgus ds ckotwn mlus fyf[kr c;ku
ntZ djus ls badkj dj fn;kA

3- ?kVuk dh xEHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq,
Nk= lSfud mfnr ;kno ds firk Jh fctsUnz
flag dks cqykus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA mijksDr
?kVuk dze ds pyrs iz'kklu ds vkns'kkuqlkj
tkWp lfefr us fnukad 18 vxLr 2017 dks iqu%
tkWp dh dk;Zokgh dks vkxs c<+kus ds fu.kZ; ds
lkFk lEiUu gqbZA

4- fnukad 18 vxLr 2017 dks Nk=
lSfud mfnr ;kno ds firk fctsUnz flg
iz/kkukpk;Z dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gq, lkFk gh
fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr Jh fctsUnz iky dks Hkh
fLFkfr ls voxr djk;k x;k tks mDr Nk= ds
firk Jh fctsUnz flag ds ifjfpr ,oa Nk= ds
LFkkuh; vfHkHkkod Hkh gSA tc bl ?kVuk esa
fyIr gksus ij Nk= lSfud mfnr ;kno ds firk
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ls mudks i{k tkuus ds fy, iz'kklu us muls
iz'u iwNs tc muls bl ckjs esa dkj.k iwNk x;k
rks mUgksus vleFkZrk trkrs gq, ;gk rd dgk
fd esjs iq= ij dksbZ fu;U=.k ugh jg x;k gSA
bl nkSjku iz/kkukpk;Z dk;kZy; esa Jh ,u0,l0
ckcw ,oa tkap lfefr dh ofj"B lnL;k Jherh
laxhrk lquhy Hkh mifLFkr FkhA bl ij
iz/kkukpk;Z egksn; us muls dgk fd vki FkksM+h
nsj ckgj izrh{kk djsaA bl fo"k; ij ge iqu%
vki ls foe'kZ djsaxsA

5- bl chp tkap lfefr us mfnr
;kno ds i=koyh dk voyksdj fd;kA fQj Hkh
fctsUnz flag dks cqyk;k x;kA bl ij irk pyk
fd oks fcuk lwpuk fd, fo|ky; NksM+ dj pys
x,A iz/kkuk/;kid egksn; us muls Qksu ls
lEidZ djus dh dksf'k'k dh ijUrq 15&20
iz;klksa
ds
ckotwn
mUgksus
tkucw>dj
iz/kkuk/;kid ls lEidZ ugha fd;k bu fo"ke
ifjfLFkfr;kas ,o Nk= lSfud mfn ;kno dh
O;fDrxr i=koyh ds voyksdu ds i'pkr tkWp
lfefr dh ;k flQkfj'k gS fd mDr Nk= dks
fo|ky; esa j[kuk mlds Hkfo"; ,oa fo|ky; dh
xfjek nksuks ds gh vuqdwy ugh gksxkA

fnukad 18 vxLr 2017

g0"

14. The recommendation made by
the Disciplinary Committee was accepted
by the Principal of the School and, on
18.08.2017
itself,
the
''Transfer
Certificate' was issued to the petitioner
and it was also uploaded on the website of
the school.

15. The contention of the learned
counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner is guilty of concealment of
material facts and of making false
averments is not without substance.

16. In paragraph 14 of the writ
petition the petitioner has categorically
stated that his work, conduct and behavior
was always satisfactory and nothing
adverse was ever communicated to him.
This averment of the petitioner has been
vociferously refuted by the contesting
respondents in paragraph 9 of their
counter affidavit. In paragraph 8 of his
rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has made
a vague denial to the averments made in
paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit.
Paragraph 14 of the writ petition,
paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit and
paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit are
extracted below:

PARAGRAPH 14 OF THE
WRIT PETITION

"14. That the work, conduct and
behavior of the petitioner was always
satisfactory and there was never any
adverse/complaint against him during the
entire life of student in the institution."

PARAGRAPH
9
OF
THE
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

"9.
that
the
contents
of
paragraph 8 of the writ petition are
misconceived and are denied. It is
submitted that Cadet Udit Yadav has been
involved in various acts of indiscipline in
the past out of which some of them are as
follows :

a.
Cdt
was
counseled
in
presence of his father Mr. Bijendra Singh
Yadav for act of indiscipline on 02
February, 2013. A copy of the counseling
report dated 02 February, 2013 is annexed
as Annexure CA-3 to this affidavit.

b. Cdt was counseled in present
of this father on 06 July, 2013 and was
suspended for seven days. Copy of
suspension order dated 06 July, 2013 is
being annexed herewith as annexure CA4 to this affidavit.

c. Cdt was involved in yet
another act of indiscipline case and was
suspended from the school from 17 July,
2016 to 27 July 2016. Copy of the
suspension order dated 17 July, 2016 to
6 All. Udit Yadav Vs. U.P. Sainik School Sarojini Nagar Lko 1157
27 July, 2016 is being annexed herewith
as annexure CA-5 to this affidavit.

d. Mr. Bijendra Singh Yadav
father of Cdt Udit Yadav himself gave a
written statement on 22 October 2016 by
giving complete liberty to the school
administration
about
the
decision
regarding his son and his misconduct.
True copy of the letter dated 22 October,
2016 is being annexed herewith as
Annexure CA-6 to this affidavit.

e. Cdt was caught using unfair
means during the school exam on 07
February, 2017 and later on accepted his
mistake in writing. True copy of the
letter of acceptance for his mistake in
exam is annexed herewith as Annexure
CA-7 to this affidavit.

f. Mr. Bijendra Singh Yadav
himself was so fed up that he requested
for issuing of Transfer Certificate of his
ward on 28th March, 2017. However,
again Mr. Bijendra F/o Cdt Udit Yadav
bagged for not to issue TC and him one
more chance. Hence keeping his father's
request school did not issued TC at that
time. True copy of the letter dated 28th
March, 2017 is being annexed herewith
as Annexure CA-8 to this affidavit.

g. Mr. Suresh Kumar Singh
father of Cdt Rudra Pratap Singh of
Class IX lodged complaint against Cdt
Udit Yadav for his misbehavior and
physical abuse towards junior cadets.
Then Cdt was suspended w.e.f. 10th
July, 2017 to 16th July, 2017. On the
basis of this application a board of
enquiry was constituted on 11 July,
2017. True copy of the order containing
constitution of the Board of inquiry on
11 July, 2017 is being annexed herewith
as Annexure CA-9 to this affidavit. It is
further submitted that inquiry committe
submitted its report and same is annexe
as Annexure CA-10 to this affidavit."

PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE
REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT

"8. That the contents of para 9
of the counter affidavit stated in the
manner are not admitted hence denied
being false, incorrect and misconceived.
In
reply
thereto
reiterating
the
averments made in para 8 of the writ
petition it is submitted that some
incident, which is not appropriate to
apprised this Hon'ble Court, took place
with the petitioner in the year 2013 and
since then the teaching and nonteaching staff as well as the classmate
students were harassing the petitioner
which continued till March 2017 and in
this circumstances, the father of the
petitioner was pressurized for taking the
Transfer Certificate of the petitioner but
on the several requests, the petitioner
was again allowed to continue in the
class/school but his harassment was not
stopped and the petitioner has been
ousted from the school in mid of the
session 12th class, when the board
examination is near, in most arbitrary
and illegal manner whereas the opposite
party No. 2 was required to allow the
petitioner to attend the class for only
about 06 months to complete his
intermediate
examination
i.e.
last
session of the school but the petitioner
has been ousted from the school without
adopting the due procedures and also
without issuing any transfer certificate.
In such situation, where the petitioner
will continue his study in mid-session is
not understood and his last and final
year will be lapsed. Thus the future
career of the petitioner has not been
considered by the opposite parties in
ousting the petitioner."

17. In paragraph 8 of the rejoinder
affidavit, the petitioner has made a vague
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
denial
to
the
averments
made
in
paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. It is
settled that a vague denial is no denial.
That apart, in the representation dated
01.11.2017, the father of the petitioner
has admitted the act of indiscipline on the
part of the petitioner and has tendered his
apology for the same. But, in the writ
petition the petitioner has repeatedly
alleged that the complaint made by Sri
N.S. Babu was false. It is, thus, apparent
that the petitioner has made a false
averment.

18.
 The
inquiry
against
the
petitioner was held on 17.08.2017 and
18.08.2017
and
according
to
the
contesting
respondents
the
''Transfer
Certificate' was issued to the petitioner on
18.08.2017 and the same was also
uploaded on the website of the school.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not been
permitted to attend the classes since then.
The last date for filling the examination
form for Class XII Board Examination -
2018 is 10.11.2017 and the petitioner has
approached this Court on 05.11.2017, just
five days before the last date, with a
categorical averment in the writ petition
that the complaint made by Sri N.S. Babu,
the English teacher, was false and that
except for the incident of 17.08.2017
there was nothing adverse against the
petitioner. This false averment, it appears,
was made with a view to gain sympathy
of the Court and to somehow get an order
for filling up the examination form.

19. In exercising power under Article
226 of the Constitution, this Court is not
just a Court of law, but is also a Court of
equity. A person who invokes the writ
jurisdiction of this Court is duty-bound to
place all the facts before the Court without
any reservation. It is well settled that in
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, this Court always keeps in
mind the conduct of the party who is
invoking such jurisdiction. If the petitioner
does not disclose full facts or suppresses
relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of
misleading the Court, then the Court may
dismiss the action without adjudicating the
matter on merits.

20. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State
Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, the
Apex Court has observed that the said
rule has been evolved in larger public
interest to -

"deter unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the process of court by
deceiving it. The very basis of the writ
jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true,
complete and correct facts. If the material
facts are not candidly stated or are
suppressed or are distorted, the very
functioning of the writ courts would
become impossible."

(emphasis supplied)

21. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Limited, (2008) 12
SCC 481, the Apex Court reiterated that
the petitioners approaching this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution must
disclose all the material facts without any
qualification. It was held as under:

"38. As per settled law, the
party who invokes the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32
or of a High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is supposed to be
truthful, frank and open. He must disclose
all material facts without any reservation
even if they are against him.

He cannot be allowed to play
"hide and seek" or to "pick and choose"
6 All. Udit Yadav Vs. U.P. Sainik School Sarojini Nagar Lko 1159
the facts he likes to disclose and to
suppress (keep back) or not to disclose
(conceal) other facts. The very basis of
the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of
true and complete (correct) facts. If
material facts are suppressed or distorted,
the very functioning of writ courts and
exercise would become impossible. The
petitioner must disclose all the facts
having a bearing on the relief sought
without any qualification. This is because
"the court knows law but not facts". 39. If
the primary object as highlighted in
Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917)
1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136
(CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who
does not come with candid facts and
"clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the
court with "soiled hands". Suppression or
concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which
has no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
disclose all the material facts fairly and
truly but states them in a distorted
manner and misleads the court, the court
has inherent power in order to protect
itself and to prevent an abuse of its
process to discharge the rule nisi and
refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits.

If the court does not reject the
petition on that ground, the court would
be failing in its duty. In fact, such an
applicant requires to be dealt with for
contempt of court for abusing the process
of the court."(emphasis supplied)

22. From the narration of the facts
above, it is apparent that the petitioner has
deliberately and intentionally concealed
material facts and has tried to mislead the
Court. The writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.

23. Even on merit, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed. It is no more res
integra that in the matter of discipline of
an educational institution, the scope of
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution is very limited.

24. In Board of High School &
Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar
Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875 the Apex Court
has held as under:

"12. .... In dealing with the
validity of the impugned orders passed by
Universities under Article 226, the High
Court is not sitting in appeal over the
decision in question; its jurisdiction is
limited and though it is true that if the
impugned order is not supported by any
evidence at all, the High Court would be
justified to quash that order. But the
conclusion that the impugned order is not
supported by any evidence must be
reached after considering the question as
to
whether
probabilities
and
circumstantial evidence do not justify the
said
conclusion.
Enquiries
held
by
domestic Tribunals in such cases must, no
doubt, be fair and students against whom
charges are framed must be given
adequate
opportunities
to
defend
themselves,
and
in
holding
such
enquiries,
the
Tribunals
must
scrupulously follow rules of natural
justice; but it would, we think, not be
reasonable to import into these enquiries
all considerations which govern criminal
trials in ordinary courts of law."

(emphasis supplied)

25. In Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary
and
Higher
Secondary
Education v. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC
716 the Apex Court reiterated that while
exercising powers under Article 226 of
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Constitution, this Court does not act
as an appellate authority. The Apex Court
held:

"10. .... We remind ourselves
that while exercising the powers, under
Article 226 or Article 136 of the
Constitution, by the High Court or of this
Court, we are not sitting as a court of
appeal on the findings of facts recorded
by the Standing Committee (domestic
enquiry body), nor have power to
evaluate the evidence as an appellate
court and to come to its own conclusions.
If the conclusions reached by the Board
can be fairly supported by the evidence
on record then the High Court or this
Court has to uphold the decision, though
as appellate court of facts, may be
inclined to take a different view."

(emphasis supplied)

26.

In
Varanaseya
Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya v. Rajkishore Tripathi
(Dr), (1977) 1 SCC 279 the Apex Court
observed that

"in a matter touching either the
discipline or the administration of the
internal affairs of a university, courts
should be most reluctant to interfere."

(emphasis supplied)

27. Again in Chairman, J & K State
Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed
Malik, (2000) 3 SCC 59 the Apex Court
reiterated that -

"In matters concerning campus
discipline of educational institutions and
conduct of examinations the duty is
primarily vested in the authorities in
charge of the institutions. In such matters
the court should not try to substitute its
own views in place of the authorities
concerned nor thrust its views on them.
That is not to say that the court cannot at
all interfere with the decisions of the
authorities in such matters. The court has
undoubtedly the power to intervene to
correct any error in complying with the
provisions of the rules, regulations or
notifications and to remedy any manifest
injustice
being
perpetrated
on
the
candidates."(emphasis supplied)

28. In Guru Ghasidas University v.
Craig Macleod, (2012) 11 SCC 275 the
Apex Court has observed that the -

"maintenance of discipline in
the University is equally important for a
conducive academic environment and that
the larger interests of the academic
community are more central than the
individual interests of a student."

(emphasis supplied)

29. In the present case, no animus is
suggested and no malafides have been
pleaded. Furthermore, the petitioner has
not made any allegation of procedural
irregularity or violation of the principles
of natural justice. Admittedly, in the
enquiry held against the petitioner, he as
well as his father were afforded an
opportunity
of
hearing.
Despite
opportunity the petitioner did not contest
the charge levelled against him. In the
representation
dated
01.11.2017,
the
father of the petitioner has admitted the
act of indiscipline on the part of the
petitioner and has tendered his apology.
The
decision
to
issue
''Transfer
Certificate' has been taken by the school
after due deliberation and after taking into
account the past record of the petitioner.

30. As stated above, the main aim of
the School is to prepare the cadets for
6 All. Ratna Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1161
entry into the commissioned ranks of the
Defence Services. Thus, discipline being
the most important part of training, one
act of gross misconduct on the part of a
cadet
warrants
major
punishment,
including
rustication
from
school.
However, despite the repeated indulgence
of the petitioner in various acts of
indiscipline and his gross misconduct
with Sri N.S. Babu, the English teacher,
on 17.08.2017, the contesting respondents
have taken a lenient view and instead of
rusticating the petitioner from the school
have
decided
to
issue
''Transfer
Certificate' to him. That being so, no
interference, whatsoever, is called for.

31. Moreover, in the case at hand,
the petitioner has not approached this
Court with clean hands. He has not only
concealed
material
facts
but
has
deliberately and intentionally made a
false averment. This is highly improper.
The writ petition was liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone. The Court
has, however, considered the merits of the
case and even on merits, the petitioner has
no case.

32. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed.

33. This Court was inclined to
saddle the petitioner with exemplary cost
but, keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner is a student, the Court has
refrained itself from doing so.
----------
(2020)06ILR A1161
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.12.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Misc. Single No. 23671 of 2017

Ratna Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Tung Nath Tiwari, Ashish Kumar Singh,
Lohitaksha Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Savitra Vardhan Singh

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 -
seeking a direction to the University of
Lucknow - to provide admission to the
petitioner in the LL.M. - averment
regarding non issuance of 'Attendance
Slip' in the rejoinder affidavit appears to
be an afterthought as the same is
conspicuously
missing
in
the
writ
petition - Vague denial is no denial.
Para-12

Petitioner appeared in the written examination
conducted by the University for admission to
the two year Master of Law (LL.M.) course -
reported for counselling - asked by some
official to wait in the side room - would be
called upon when her turn comes - kept
waiting in the side room till 2 p.m., but she
was not called for counseling - Neither in the
writ petition, nor in the rejoinder affidavit, has
the petitioner disclosed the name of the
official who had asked her to wait in the side
room. - With regard to 'Attendance Slip', the
petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit, for the first
time, has vaguely alleged that "even though
the petitioner had reached the counseling
venue in time, no attendance slip was ever
provided to her".
 Para - 3,12

HELD:- In the present case, no animus is
suggested and no malafides have been
pleaded. The petitioner is a law graduate. She
was
well
aware
about
the
counselling
procedure. The contention of the petitioner
that she reported for counseling at 9.30 a.m.
sharp and kept sitting in the side room till 2