THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.15311 and 22825 of 2014 Dated: 19.12.2014 Between:
Mohan Dharavath .. Petitioner and The English and Foreign Languages University, Rep. by the Registrar and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy for Mr. B. Nalin Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Mr. A. Ravinder Reddy The court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These two writ petitions have been filed by a Ph.D. student of respondent No.1 University, feeling aggrieved by his rustication for four semesters.
When these writ petitions were heard on 27.10.2014, this Court has passed the following order in W.P.No.22825 of 2014:
“I have heard the case at length.
During the midst of the hearing, it has fallen from the Court that it is in fitness of things that respondent No.1-University stands on the assurance given by it in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.15311 of 2014.
Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1-University submitted that the petitioner may approach the Vice-Chancellor with a letter of apology and assurance that he will not give any scope for such complaints in future to enable the University to reconsider its decision.
Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the petitioner will do the needful as suggested by the learned Standing Counsel.
The writ petition is accordingly adjourned to 10-11-2014. In the meantime, the petitioner is permitted to approach the Vice Chancellor with a written apology and the assurance as required by the learned Standing Counsel.”
At the hearing, Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, has placed before the Court the apology letter dated 30.10.2014 of the petitioner addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.1 University, which reads as under:
“Respected Madam,
1. I am a student of Ph.D. in the Department of Indian and World Literatures, the English and Foreign Languages University with Roll No.09/P/106.
2. I am due to submit my thesis.
3. I have been rusticated for a period of 4 semesters on a charge of breaking glass door of the university library on 11-3-2014 and instigating other students to do the same.
4. I sincerely apologize to you and the university for the damage caused to the glass door of the university at a time when a large group of protesting students were trying to enter the library building. I assure your goodself and the university that I will not give any scope for complaints in future to enable the university to reconsider its decision of rusticating me as stated above.
5. In view of urgency I request you to take immediate action and accept my Ph.D thesis and save my career.
Thanking you.”
Mr. A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, has submitted that as the petitioner has been creating trouble in the University premises, while respondent No.1 has no objection for accepting the apology of the petitioner and receiving the thesis to be submitted by him, he may not be permitted to enter the University premises in order to avoid further disturbances.
Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, has taken strong exception to this submission and submitted that the freedom of the petitioner to enter the University premises cannot be curtailed on the basis of misplaced apprehensions. He has stated that in the apology letter, the petitioner has categorically undertaken not to give scope for complaints in future and that his client will behave in a disciplined manner.
As regards the apology tendered by the petitioner, I feel it appropriate that respondent No.1 accepts the same, considering the fact that the career of a young student shall not be put to jeopardy even after his expressing remorse for his alleged conduct.
Insofar as the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner shall not be allowed to enter the University premises is concerned, I feel such a condition is too harsh to any student, as it not only affects the morale of the student but also curtails his freedom. After all, the University is not helpless in the event the petitioner creates any law and order situation in the University premises, as the law can be set into motion to meet such contingency. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has submitted his thesis, he shall not enter the hostel premises. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has agreed to this extent and assured that the petitioner will not enter the hostel premises.
In view of the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner, the impugned rustication is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to receive the thesis to be submitted by the petitioner and process the same in an objective manner. The petitioner, as undertaken by the learned Senior Counsel representing him, shall not enter the hostel premises.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petitions are allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.18970 and 28626 of 2014 and W.V.M.P.No.2690 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th December, 2014 IBL