Pankaj Dahiya v. University of Delhi & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JANUARY 11, 2016

'pp'..

(Corrected and released on 22nd June, 2016)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th January, 2016 + PANKAJ DAHIYA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv. Versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. Simran Jeet, Advs. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The petition impugns the action of the respondent University of Delhi of cancelling the result of the petitioner of B.E. (Mechanical) course/programme and expelling the petitioner from the University. Axiomatically, the Memorandum dated 9th August, 2007 of the respondent University cancelling the result of all the B.E. examinations taken by the petitioner and the report of the Disciplinary Committee of the respondent University on the basis of which the Memorandum aforesaid has been issued are also impugned. 2. The petition was entertained, though interim stay sought of the aforesaid Memorandum not granted. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent University and though no rejoinder thereto filed by the petitioner inspite of opportunity but an additional affidavit dated 9th July, 2012 was filed by the petitioner. The counsels have been heard. 3. The petitioner, on 24th July, 2000 was admitted to the Delhi College of Engineering (DCE) then under the respondent University, to the Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) course/programme consisting of eight semesters and by January, 2004 appeared and cleared seven semesters. The petitioner appeared for the 8th semester examination in May, 2004 but was declared fail in the theory paper in the subject of Industrial Engineering (bearing no.ME- 411) and in the practical paper in the subject of Automobile Engineering/Engine Emissions (bearing no.ME/428/432). The petitioner on 11th March, 2005 registered himself only for appearing in the practical examination of Automobile Engineering/Engine Emissions as on qualifying the same he would have become entitled to be awarded the degree of B.E. and appeared in the said examination held on 29th April, 2005. However in the result declared in July, 2005, the petitioner was declared absent in the theory paper of Combusion Engines (bearing no.ME 416) for which he had not even registered and his result of the practical paper in the subject of Automobile Engineering/Engine Emissions was not declared at all. 4. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) no.6897/2006 averring that though he had represented in this regard but no action was being taken thereon perhaps because of his alleged involvement in Delhi College of Engineering Entrance Paper Leaks Scam of the year 2005 and seeking a mandamus to the respondent University to declare the result of the petitioner of the practical paper taken by him in the subject of Automobile Engineering/Engine Emissions and if he had passed therein, to issue him the degree of B.E. (Mechanical). The said writ petition was accompanied with an application for interim relief and aggrieved from the non-grant of interim relief LPA No.996/2006 was preferred and vide order dated 14th June, 2006 wherein, the respondent University was directed to produce the result of the petitioner in the practical paper in the subject of Automobile Engineering/Engine Emissions. 5. The respondent University issued a notice dated 1st June, 2006 to the petitioner asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the ground that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed a charge sheet against him in relation to the Entrance Paper Leaks Scam of the year 2005 and in pursuance whereto vide order dated 5th June, 2006 cancelled the result of the petitioner and expelled the petitioner from the University. 6. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.104236/2006 impugning the said order of the respondent University and vide order dated 11th May, 2007 therein the said decision of the respondent University was set aside and the respondent University directed to give another opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply