IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16448 of 2010
CHANDRA BHUSHAN PRAKASH PASWAN .
Versus
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS .
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate
For the Respondents: None
—
2. 09.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears
on behalf of the respondents despite service of a copy of the writ
application upon them and name of the Counsel appearing in
the cause list.
The petitioner is stated to be a student of the National
Institute of Technology, Patna in the B. Tech. Mechanical
Engineering Course in the four year session duration
commencing from July 2008. Each session consists of two
semester examinations to be held in December and May/June.
In the last semester examination for the first Session 2008-
2009 he was issued a show cause notice on 13.7.2009 for
having used unfair means. After consideration of the cause
shown his examination was cancelled on 28.7.2009 on grounds
mentioned in the order. The petitioner approached this Court in
CWJC No. 12282 of 2009 questioning the College permitting
him to join afresh from the Session 2010-2011 on the ground
that under the regulations he was required to take fresh
admission in 2009-2010 Session and could pursue his lst year
course afresh. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents.
The Court after consideration of issues noticed the stand of the
NIT as follows:-
“Counsel for the N.I.T. submits that the
regulations are very clear and on account of
2
certain ambiguity certain persons were erroneously
allowed to appear. A fresh corrigendum has been
issued on 24.4.2009. The submission on behalf of
the N.I.T. is that a candidate who is found to have
been using unfairmeans in the semester is
debarred for the next academic session as a
measure of punishment. After the punishment is
allowed to run its course, the candidate is
permitted to take admission in the next academic
session. Applying that interpretation, what
transpires is that for the unfairmeans indulged in
May/June semester examination in 2009, the
petitioner as a measure of punishment is debarred
from appearing in May/June examination of the
Sessions 2009-2010. After the punishment has
completed its course, the petitioner is allowed to
join the next academic session after the duration of
punishment in 2010-2011.”
It was held that the Court did not find any
unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the decision warranting
interference. The petitioner in terms of the stand taken by the
NIT itself was eligible to take admission in the Session 2010-
2011.
The petitioner therefore represented afresh for permission
to take admission in the Session 2010-2011 on 3.8.2010. That
has been rejected by an order dated 12.8.2010.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once
the respondents took a particular stand before this Court and
the petitioner seeks relief after dismissal of his writ application
in the manner and to the extent that the respondents
represented before this Court, he cannot be denied admission in
the course commencing from the Session 2010-2011. No reason
has been assigned in the impugned order dated 12.8.2010.
On perusal of the order in CWJC No. 12282 of 2009 it
appears that the respondents in no uncertain terms took the
3
stand that the petitioner was debarred from pursuing the course
in the Session 2009-2010 and that after punishment ran its
course he was allowed to join in the next academic session
2010-2011. Once they took a particular stand before the Court if
they chose to deny the petitioner the benefit, they were required
to spell out reasons. The reason may or may not have had its
justification which would have been then assessed by the Court
on its own merit.
An administrative order which has civil consequences is
required to be reasoned. The giving of reasons are a facet of the
principles of natural justice displaying application of mind to the
issue and arriving at a decision after consideration of all aspects.
It controls arbitrariness and leaves the citizen satisfied that his
case has been duly and properly considered but that he was
unfortunate that the law debarred him. Reasons have been held
to be heart and soul of an order. An order sans reason, more so
when the edifice for the relief claimed is based on a court’s order
becomes arbitrary and perverse. The order dated 12.8.2010
therefore is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside.
The petitioner is held entitled to be admitted to the
aforesaid course in the Session 2010-2011. The right to appear
at the examination, attendance etc. are matters for which the
petitioner if so advised may move before the respondents
appropriately under the Regulations.
The writ application stands allowed.
Snkumar/-
(Navin Sinha,J.)
4