G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to allow him admission in M.Ed. course 1991 -92 in Meerut College, Meerut. Parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Meerut College is an institution affiliated to Meerut University and it imparts education upto Post Graduate level: that the petitioner applied for admission in M.Ed. course and submitted an application for that purpose in the University that the University recommended his name for admission in Meerut College; that the petitioner approached the Head of the Department of Education in Meerut College who asked for a report from the Proctor of the College that the Proctor gave a report that the petitioner's name was in the list of candidates 'not to be admitted'; that thereafter the Chairman of the Admission Committee refused to admit the petitioner: The case of the petitioner further is that the State Government has issued an order on May 5, 1987 in exercise of powers con furred by a Section 28(5) of State University Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in accordance with the said order the Principal has no power to refuse admission to any student once his name is recommended by the Vice -Chancellor of the University.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Principal of the Meerut College and the case of the said respondent is that there were reports against the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner is an indisciplined student and the District Magistrate, Meerut had given reports on August 6, 1986 and October 15, 1987 regarding these students whose admission in the college was likely to disturb the academic atmosphere of the institution and was likely to create an atmosphere of lawlessness. The name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl. No. 3 in the aforesaid list. A list was also prepared in the Meerut College regarding those students whose presence was likely to give rise to indiscipline and disturbance of the academic atmosphere of the institution and the petitioner's name found place in the said list. In January, 1986 an order under Section 144, Cr.P.C. was passed by a competent Magistrate whereby the petitioner and some other students were restrained from entering the premises of Meerut College and some other institutions. It was on account of these reasons and to maintain academic atmosphere in the institution and in the interest of students studying therein that the Principal decided not to admit the petitioner in Meerut College. It is further pleaded that the list of the students sent by the University for admission in M.Ed. course is recommendatory in nature and the Principal of the institution has still a discretion in the matter, if he is of the opinion that a candidate is not a fit person who should be granted admission. Learned counsel has submitted that State Government has issued an order on May 5, 1987 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 28(5) of the Act and in accordance with the said order the petitioner is entitled to be admitted in Meerut College as his name was recommended by the Vice Chancellor and the Principal has no right or authority to refuse to grant admission to him. A copy of this order has been filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition Learned counsel has drawn attention to Paragraphs 4, 12(3), 13(2), 14(c) and 15 of the order. Para. 12(3) provides that Principal will have a right not to grant admission to a candidate even though his name finds place in the merit list, if the District Magistrate has given a written report against him, or he is being prosecuted for some criminal offence or he has been convicted in some criminal case, or he has been expelled for two or more years by the University on account of use of unfair means in examination, but for this purpose the Principal will have to obtain written permission from the University. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as in the present case the Principal of the College had not obtained prior written permission from the University, he had no authority to refuse admission to the petitioner.
(3.) IN my opinion the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is no allegation in the writ petition that before refusing to grant admission to the petitioner, the Principal had not taken permission from the Vice Chancellor. This permission need not be for cash individual student. Annexure -1 to the counter -affidavit is a list prepared by the office of the Principal of the Meerut College on October 29, 1991 and it contains names of those persons (category 'A') who were not to be admitted in the College at all and the name of the petitioner finds place in the said category. It is quite possible that this list was prepared by the Principal after taking permission from the University. In absence of any clear and specific allegation in the writ petition to the effect that no permission was taken by the Principal from the University before refusing admission to the petitioner, it is not open for him to contend that there has been violation of Para. 12(3) of the Government Order learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition in this regard, I have carefully perused the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition and in my opinion the necessary factual foundation has not been laid in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition which may enable the petitioner to contend that there has been a breach of Para. 12(3) of the Government Order. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para. 8 of the rejoinder affidavit and also to a letter dated March 7, 1992 sent by the Vice Chancellor to the petitioner. It is not open to the petitioner to allege new facts in the rejoinder -affidavit. The letter of the Vice Chancellor has been sent in reference to the petitioner's application dated February 28, 1992. The copy of the aforesaid application has not been filed. In case the petitioner wanted to rely upon the aforesaid letter of the Vice Chancellor and wanted to plead some new facts, he should have sought the permission of the court to file a supplementary affidavit and then the respondents would have got an opportunity to file a reply thereto. It will not be proper to rely upon those facts and documents which have been brought on record for the first time through the rejoinder affidavit as the respondent has got no right to file a reply to the same.;