Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31805 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shivansh Bajpai And 4 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra,Amish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1, Union of India.
By order dated 14.08.2019 the petitioners have been restrained from pursuing B.Tech. Course in the respondent University. The order records that the petitioners have attained their qualifying certificates from the Jharkhand State Open School. The aforesaid certificates are not recognised in law.
Sri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding in the impugned order to the effect that the certificates issued by the Jharkhand State Open School are invalid and not recognised is incorrect. The petitioners were never given an opportunity to establish the validity of the school certificates issued by Jharkhand State Open School from equivalence.
Learned counsel for the respondent University could not demonstrate whether the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing before restraining them from pursuing their courses.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions a post decisional hearing in the instant case would subserve the ends of justice.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. With consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are not cast in any strait jacket formula. The requirements of natural justice are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice. In the evolution of the law of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the concept of post decisional hearing in appropriate cases. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported at (2015) 8 SCC 519, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full- fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on."
In view of the facts of the case and position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a post decisional hearing would subserve the interest of justice. Matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2, Registrar, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow to execute the following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent no. 2 along with representation and testimonials in support of the validity and the recognition of the Jharkhand State Open School certificates issued in their favour.
(ii) The respondent no. 2 shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
(iii) In case there is any infirmity in the representation or any adverse material is proposed to be relied upon against the petitioners regarding the validity of their qualifying examination certificates, the respondent no. 2 shall notice to the petitioners on the said material or infirmities. The respondent no. 2 shall also grant an opportunity to the petitioners to refute the aforesaid adverse material.
(iv) The representation of the petitioners shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with copies of the representation.
The impugned order dated 14.08.2019 shall abide by the order passed by the Registrar, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow, pursuant to these directions.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Pravin