The Jamia Millia Islamia has been asked by the Delhi High Court to respond to a plea by a student against denial of admission for Masters degree in Persian language in the current session of the university.
A bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw sought the university's response to the student's plea challenging the order of the court's single-judge bench, dismissing his plea earlier against denial of the admission.
Issuing notice to Jamia and its vice-chancellor, the division bench sought their replies by November 9 on Hamidur Rahman's plea, filed through counsel Sitab Ali Chaudhary.
In his plea, Rahman has alleged he was denied admission as he had sought the high court's direction to the university to hold students union elections, suspended since 2006.
Challenging the single-judge bench's order, Rahman said, "the single judge has failed to appreciate that the action of the university and the vice-chancellor in denying him admission had only one object and tendency i.e. to coerce and pressurise him to withdraw the pending plea for restoration of democracy and teaching him as well as to other students a lesson not to raise their voice against injustice..."
Rahman said he is a meritorious student and more than 10 seats were left vacant as of now.
"The action of the university is illegal, malafide, discriminatory, unjust, unwarranted, uncalled for, tyrant, biased and without jurisdiction and thus liable to be quashed or set aside by this court as the same cannot stand the scrutiny of law," Rahman said in his plea.
Rahman said he had applied for MA (Persian) for 2012-13 session on May 7 and in July he had appeared for the viva voce but he was denied admission.
The single judge had dismissed Rahman's plea on October 5, after accepting Jamia's argument that Rahman was denied admission as "he had misconducted himself during the interview and complaints were received against him from the directors of the various centres. Based on the complaints, the vice-chancellor was of the view that Rahman was trying to secure admission on the rolls of the University to create disarray, annoyance and to disturb the peace."
The single judge upheld the vice-chancellor's decision and said, "In my view, in case the complaints were brought to the notice of the vice-chancellor and the vice-chancellor did not take any action it would amount to not exercising discretion, which is vested in him, as it would lead to indiscipline in