Student’s studies can’t be disrupted due to institution’s fault: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a student’s studies must be treated as continuous once rustication is set aside, otherwise he will unfairly lose years of his career despite being ready to study but prevented by the institution. The assertion came as the division bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri ordered the promotion of a law student to the seventh semester.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak, and other appellants against the student. The institute contended that Rs 1 lakh costs was imposed by a single judge of the high court on it even though its action was “bona fide”.  Further, that the respondent-law student was allowed to continue with his studies though he had not attended the lectures.

“Once the rustication was held to be bad, the continuance of studies has to be deemed, and by virtue of the said, deeming fiction, the respondent will be in seventh semester as of now. Otherwise, despite holding that punishment imposed is bad, respondent will still be prejudice to lose two years of his career as though respondent was ready to study but he was prevented by the appellants,” the bench asserted.

Appearing on the student’s behalf, counsel Ankita Sambyal and Shubham Saini submitted that they would not press the cost of Rs 1 lakh. But the student should be treated as continuing with the course without obstruction and allowed to appear in the examinations which he had missed.

The bench observed that the sole allegation against the student was that he was found staying in the hostel without entitlement. There was no evidence of illegality or violation of institutional rules, except that he was sharing space with his friends in their room. The bench observed that such an allegation could not justify rustication that would spoil a student’s career. “It may be noticed that the allegations against the respondent were not such that the same would entitle the appellants to rusticate him from the studies so as to spoil his career,” the court observed.

The bench also took note of the institute’s arguments that the student had failed to attend 70 per cent of the lectures making it difficult to promote him. Rejecting this contention, the bench asserted: As a special case so as to avoid any prejudice to the respondent, he will be promoted to the seventh semester and he will be allowed to appear in the examination of fourth, fifth and the sixth and midterm of the seventh semester which he has not been able to appear due to the pendency of the writ petition or Letters Patent Appeal as the case may be. In case, he is able to clear the examination, which he has failed to undertake due to the punishment imposed, which order has been set aside by the single judge, due action can be taken in accordance with the regulations of the institution.

Before parting with the order, the bench asked the appellate authority to sympathetically consider the respondent’s case, “who is only a student though he might have committed certain mistakes while studying in the institution”. The bench also waived the Rs 1 lakh cost after the student’s counsel chose not to press for it.