S.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the decision of the Academic Council dated 9.12.2006 ( Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition ) regarding the cancellation of the petitioner's M.Com degree and his registration of Ph.D. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it appears that the petitioner passed his B.B.A (Bachelor of Business Administration ) from Veer Bahadur Singh Poorvanchal University- respondent no.1 in the year 2000. THE petitioner passed M.B.A. Examination in the year 2002. THE petitioner applied for and was registered as Ph.D student under Dr. G.C.Jaiswal, the then Reader in Master of Finance Control Department of the respondent no.1- University on 12.7.2003. Copy of the application of the petitioner has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. Clause (2) of the declaration made by the petitioner in the application was as under:
(2.) 2- eSa ;g Hkh lR; fu"BkiwoZd ?kks"k.kk djrk gwWa fd fo'ofo|ky; ds fu;e @ ijfu;e @ v/;kns'kksa ds vUrxZr eSa fdlh iw.kZdkfyd 'kS{kf.kd ikB~;dze esa bl vFkok vU; fdlh fo'ofo|ky; esa lkFk&lkFk v/;;ujr ugha jgwWaxk A ;fn ,slk ik;k tk; rks mi;qZDr d`R;ksa ds fy, esjk 'kks/k iathdj.k @ 'kks/k mikf/k fujLr dj nh tk; A** It is, interalia,further averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Business Administration in Ideal Department of Management Science, Mirzapur with the approval of the respondent no. 1-University; and that the said institution is affiliated to the respondent no.1 -University and is being run under the Self -Financing Scheme; and that the petitioner worked as Lecturer from 1.5.2004 to 30.4.2005. It is, interalia, further averred in the Writ Petition that in the year 2004, the petitioner appeared as a Private Candidate for M. Com. Part -1 Examination and he passed the same and thereafter, the petitioner appeared in M. Com. Final Examination in the year 2005 again as a Private Candidate of the respondent no.1-University which he passed in First Division and secured Ist Position for which he was awarded Gold-Medal. It is, interalia, further averred in the Writ Petition that after completing the research, the petitioner submitted his Ph.D. Thesis to the Academic Section of the respondent no.1-University for evalution on 24.12.2005. It is, interalia, further averred in the Writ Petition that on 12.1.2007, the petitioner learned that Academic Council -respondent no. 2 had cancelled the petitioner's M. Com. Degree as well as his registration for Ph.D. and consequently, the petitioner's Ph.D. Thesis was not to be sent for evaluation. Copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Academic Council dated 9.12.2006 has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition. Agenda-Item No.3 under " Other points raised with the permission of the Chairman" of the Academic Council deals with the case of the petitioner. It is, interalia, stated in the decision taken by the Academic Council in respect of the said Agenda- Item no.3 that the Academic Council has unanimously decided that M. Com. Degree of the petitioner as well as registration of the petitioner for Ph.D., be cancelled, and the thesis submitted by the petitioner be not got evaluated, and information in this regard be published in the Newspapers, and the other Universities be also informed in this regard. Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. In the said Counter Affidavit, it is, interalia, stated that the petitioner, after getting the M.B.A. Degree in the year 2002, was registered with the respondent no.1-University in the Month of July, 2003 for Ph.D. Course; and that the petitioner submitted his thesis on 24.12.2005; and that the petitioner had also completed M. Com. Course in the duration of 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2005; that the petitioner was also working as a Teacher on contract basis in the Self -Finance College, namely, 'Ideal Academy of Management Sciences' ,Shiwala, Mirzapur affiliated with the respondent no. 1-University from May, 2004; and that for the said appointment, necessary approval was sought by the College from the respondent no.1-University which was granted by the letter dated 29.4.2004 ( Annexure CA 1 to the Counter Affidavit ); and that the petitioner had, thus, obtained two degrees and was also doing job during the same period; and that thus, the petitioner had violated his undertaking given in the application form for registration for Ph.D. I have heard Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.M.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Counsel has stated that no Rejoinder Affidavit is proposed to be filed on behalf of the petitioner, and the matter may be heard for final disposal. Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Counsel submits that before cancelling the petitioner's M. Com. degree and his registration for Ph.D., no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to present his version. It is further submitted by Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner had not violated the undertaking given by him, as the petitioner passed M. Com. ( Previous ) Examination in the year 2004 and M. Com .( Final ) Examination in the year 2005 as a private candidate, while the undertaking given by the petitioner prohibits the petitioner from perusing study in any full-time educational course. In reply, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as there was violation of the undertaking given by the petitioner on the face of it, the cancellation of M. Com. Degree of the petitioner as well as his registration for Ph.D. was fully justified. He further submits that for getting Ph.D., a person is required to devote his full-time in the work of research for at least twenty months, and the said person is deemed to be a student as provided in the Ordinances of the respondent no. 1- University. In rejoinder, Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates his submissions made earlier. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. In paragraph No. 14 of the Writ Petition, it is stated as under :- "14. That on 12.01.2007, petitioner learnt that Academic Council, respondent no.2 has cancelled the petitioner's M.Com. Degree as well as his Registration for Ph.D. and consequently, petitioner's Ph.D thesis was not to be sent for evaluation. Petitioner had absolutely no notice or knowledge of the said proceeding or decision of the Academic Council. Petitioner has succeeded in obtaining minutes of meeting of Academic Council dated 09.12.2006 which shows that meeting of the Academic Council was held on 09.12.2006, there was no item regarding cancellation of petitioner's M. Com. Degree or his Registration for Ph.D. on agenda but this item with regard to petitioner was taken up by the Academic Council with permission of Chairman of Academic Council/Vice Chairman and Academic Council without any notice or opportunity of hearing or considering relevant ordinances cancelled the petitioner's M. Com. Degree and his Registration for Ph.D." Reply to the averments made in paragraph no. 14 of the Writ Petition, has been given in paragraph no. 20 of the Counter Affidavit, which is as under : "20. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 14,15, and 16 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that the petitioner has obtained the aforesaid degree and submitted his thesis in absolute contravention of his undertaking, therefore, the same was rightly cancelled. Rest of the averments are matters of record can be verified. It is further submitted that the action under challenge is in the direction of his undertaking thus no opportunity of hearing is required." From a perusal of the above quoted paragraph no. 14 of the Writ Petition, it is evident that specific averment was made that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the Academic Council took its decision in respect of the petitioner in the meeting held on 9.12.2006 cancelling the petitioner's M. Com. Degree as well as his registration for Ph.D. A perusal of paragraph no. 20 of the Counter Affidavit shows that the said averment made in paragraph no. 14 of the Writ Petition has not been specifically denied in the said paragraph of the Counter Affidavit. In fact, paragraph no. 20 of the Counter Affidavit states that no opportunity of hearing is required. From the above, it is clear that after the petitioner had completed his M. Com. Degree and got Gold Medal for standing first in the respondent no.1- University ,his M. Com. Degree was cancelled by the Academic Council in the meeting held on 9.12.2006 by its decision regarding Agenda-Item No. 3 under the heading "Other points raised with the permission of the Chairman". Again, after completing his research, the petitioner had submitted his thesis for Ph.D. on 24.12.2005, but his registration for Ph.D. was cancelled by the Academic Council in the above meeting, and it was decided that the thesis of the petitioner would not be sent for evaluation. No notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before taking the above decisions which vitally affect the petitioner's academic career. In my opinion, before taking the above decisions, the Academic Counsel ( Respondent no. 2 ) was bound to give notice to the petitioner, and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, any decision in the matter should have been taken. The Academic Council has evidently taken the above decisions in total disregard of the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, the decision of the Academic Council ( respondent no. 2) taken in its meeting held on 9.12.2006 in regard to the petitioner under Agenda -Item No. 3 under the heading "Other points raised with the permission of the Chairman" whereby the petitioner's M.Com. Degree as well as his registration for Ph.D. have been cancelled, cannot be sustained, and the same is liable to be quashed, and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Academic Council for deciding the same afresh after getting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In view of the above, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed,and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The decision of the Academic Council taken in its meeting held on 9.12.2006 ( Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition ) regarding Agenda-Item No. 3 under the heading " Other points raised with the permission of the Chairman" whereby the petitioner's M. Com. Degree and his registration for Ph.D., have been cancelled, is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the Academic Council ( Respondent no. 2) for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case of the petitioner on merits, as the same is to be considered by the Academic Council. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.;