1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set the decision taken vide Resolution No. 40 dated 29.11.2010 by the South Gujarat University Syndicate holding and declaring that the respondent No. 3 has procured admission to F.Y. B.A in MTB Arts College, Surat by practicing fraud and by suppressing the factum of the imposition of punishment on him vide Notification dated 19.10.1994 issued by the Respondent-University with a further direction to respondent-University to initiate appropriate legal action against the respondent No.3 in accordance with the provisions of Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made under the South Gujarat University Act, 1965 including the one for cancellation of the degrees so procured by him of B.A., and LL.B.
2.0 The petitioner addressed a communication to respondents no.1 and 2 pointing out, on the basis of news paper reports, that the respondent no.3 herein by suppressing the factum of punishment imposed on him by the respondent no.1 University vide Notification dated 19.10.1994 procured admission fraudulently in F.Y.B.A on 4.7.1994 in MTB Arts College, Surat. He also prayed for cancellation of degrees so procured and for imposition of heavy penalty. In fact the respondent no.3 has been debarred from appearing in the examinations till the end of First Session of the Academic Year 1994-95 and also from attending the sessions till the end of the First Session of the said Academic Year. Therefore the Director, Examination sought explanation from respondent no.3 on the issue. The respondent no.3 vide his reply dated 25.11.2010 stated that he procured admission in F.Y.B.A on 25.08.1994 in MTB Arts College, Surat and prayed for taking a sympathetic view and exonerate him. As is evident from the petition, on receipt of the reply the matter was put up before the Syndicate of the University and the Syndicate in its turn took a decision vide Resolution No.40 dated 29.11.2010 to accept the explanation tendered by respondent no.3. Hence the present petition has been filed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that while passing the Resolution the Syndicate has not given any reasons. According to him though the respondent no.3 admitted that he has committed fraud, the Syndicate ought to have taken action against him and some punishment ought to have been imposed apart from cancelling the degrees procured by respondent no.3.
4.0 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner at length. From the record it emerges that the the respondent no.3 was debarred from appearing in the examination and the petitioner, who is a third party, has pointed out to the respondent authority that the respondent no.3 has procured degrees fraudulently. Thereafter the Syndicate of the University considered the matter and decided to accept the explanation tendered by the respondent no.3.
5.0 In fact the subject matter is between the University and the respondent no.3. It is a good gesture as a citizen to point out any irregularity to the concerned authority. However, such a person has no further right to suggest terms of penalty to the authority. It is for the authority to consider the pros and cons of the matter and take a proper decision. In the present case also once the petitioner brought the notice of the University about the alleged fraud, his role ends there. Thereafter the University through its Syndicate has considered the matter. Ultimately the explanation tendered by the petitioner was accepted. The Syndicate has applied their mind and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the said decision.
6.0 It is required to be noted that respondent no.3 has filed a criminal complaint being C.R. No.II 485 of 2002 against the petitioner herein before Chawkbazar Police Station. There is another complaint filed being C.R.No.169/2007 registered with the same police station. From these facts it is clear that the petitioner is trying to put pressure on the respondent no.3. In sum and substance it appears that the petitioner is trying to settle his personal grievance with the respondent no.3.
7.0 I have gone through the Resolution of the Syndicate and I do not find any infirmity in the said resolution. Merely because the petitioner is not satisfied with the said resolution it is not open to him to challenge the same as a third party. In fact the said resolution does not affect any right of the petitioner. Apart from that the Resolution is of the year 2010 which is challenged in the year 2012.
8.0 In view of the above this is not a case which deserves consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2500/- which shall be paid to Legal Aid Authority.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top