- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the University at length. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been refused admission to the M.V.Sc. (Medicine) course for the session 1987-88 in the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry , Mathura. This action, it is alleged, is based on the order of the Vice-chancellor dated 11-12-1986, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the order under Annexure 6 was passed by the Vice-chancellor and that the order is arbitrary. Counsel appearing for the University has drawn our attention to the relevant Regulation of the University, extracted in para 6 of the counter affidavit, which reserves to the Vice-Chancellor the power to refuse admission to a candidate who is otherwise qualified provided in the opinion of the Vice-chancellor and for reasons to be recorded in writing the Vice-Chancellor does not consider the admission of the student to be in the interest of the University. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that allegations made against the petitioner in Annexure 6 had previously been considered by the authorities, but he had been exonerated and allowed to take the graduate-level examination which he has cleared.
(2.) We have considered the entire matter carefully. When the power given to the Vice-chancellor under the aforesaid Regulation is judiciously exercised in the larger interest of the institution, it is not for the courts to substitute their own opinion in the matter for that of the Vice-chancellor. It appears overall assessment of the past conduct of the petitioner led the Vice-Chancellor to the conclusion that he should not be permitted to continue further studies at the College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry , Mathura. The order passed by the Vice-Chancellor does not suffer from arbitrariness, nor are we satisfied that any principles of natural justice have been violated in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(3.) Accordingly, we find no merit in this writ petition which is rejected in limine. With the disposal of the writ petition the interim order dated 5-3-1987 is vacated. Learned counsel for the petitioner orally prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On consideration we are of opinion that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in this case nor is it a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. The oral prayer is accordingly rejected.;