>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Tian Yong vs. University of Science and Technologies of Beijing (Administrative Lawsuit on Refusal to Issue the Graduation Certificate and the Academic Degree Certificate)
田永诉北京科技大学拒绝颁发毕业证、学位证行政诉讼案
【法宝引证码】

Tian Yong vs. University of Science and Technologies of Beijing (Administrative Lawsuit on Refusal to Issue the Graduation Certificate and the Academic Degree Certificate)
(Administrative Lawsuit on Refusal to Issue the Graduation Certificate and the Academic Degree Certificate)
田永诉北京科技大学拒绝颁发毕业证、学位证行政诉讼案

Tian Yong vs. University of Science and Technologies of Beijing
(Administrative Lawsuit on Refusal to Issue the Graduation Certificate and the Academic Degree Certificate)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Tian Yong, male, student of Grade 94 of Department of Physical Chemistry of the Application Science Institute, University of Science and Technologies of Beijing@#
Authorized agents:
Ma Huaide, lawyer of Datong-Zhengda Law Firm, Beijing@#
Sun Yashen, lawyer of Tong Zheng Law Firm, Beijing@#
Defendant: University of Science and Technologies of Beijing@#
Legal representative: Yang Tianjun, president@#
Authorized agents:
Zhang Feng, associate professor of China University of Political Science and Law@#
Li Mingying, director of the President's Office of University of Science and Technologies of Beijing@#
The plaintiff, Tian Yong (hereinafter referred to as Tian), brought an administrative lawsuit at the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Haidian Court) against University of Science and Technologies of Beijing (hereinafter referred to as USTB) claiming that he himself have met the legal requirements to be a university graduate, and USTB is illegal to refuse to issue the graduation certificate and the academic degree certificate to him.@#
Tian claimed: I have been studying in USTB and have attended all the activities organized by it as a formal student in USTB. In addition, I have finished the teaching plans of USTB, and my academic performance and graduation thesis have reached the level of a graduate of a university. However, it was not until graduation that USTB notified my department of refusing to issue the graduation certificate and the academic degree certificate to me and to handle the formalities of graduation dispatch for me with the reason that I did not have my name registered in the school roll. USTB's act had violated legal provisions. Tian requested Haidian Court to rule that USTB should: 1. issue the graduation certificate and the academic degree certificate to me; 2. handle the formalities of graduation dispatch for me timely and effectively; 3. compensate me 3,000 Yuan of economic losses; 4. apologize to him and rehabilitate his reputation publicly through the school newspaper; 5. bear the litigation fee for this case.@#
USTB contended: Tian violated USTB's provisions in Urgent Circular on Strictly Managing Examinations (hereinafter referred to as Circular No. 068) by secretly carrying a scrip with electromagnetics formulas on it when attending a makeup examination, and was noticed by the invigilators. USTB then decided that Tian should leave school, and notified the relevant departments of USTB to handle the formalities of Tian's leaving school. The notice to Tian himself was also served to Tian's institute through the mailbox in USTB. Accordingly, Tian's name had been removed from the school roll. Due to such reasons that Tian did not cooperate in the handling of relevant formalities, some departments of USTB had not completed their work, and some teachers did not know about the facts, Tian was able to continue to study in USTB after having left school. However, the acquiescence of some departments of USTB and some teachers in Tian's continuing to study in USTB could not represent USTB's intent, nor could it prove that Tian's name in the school roll had been restored. If his name is not in the school roll, a student should not be qualified to graduate from a university. USTB's refusal to issue the graduation certificate and the academic degree certificate to Tian and not handling the formalities of graduation dispatch were correct. Haidian Court should reject Tian's litigation claims in accordance with the law.@#
......

 

田永诉北京科技大学拒绝颁发毕业证、学位证行政诉讼案@#
@#
原告:田永,男,北京科技大学应用科学学院物理化学系94级学生。@#
委托代理人:马怀德,北京市大通--正达律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:孙雅申,北京市通正律师事务所律师。@#
被告:北京科技大学。@#
法定代表人:杨天钧,校长。@#
委托代理人:张锋,中国政法大学副教育。@#
委托代理人:李明英,北京科技大学校长办公室主任。@#
原告田永认为自己符合大学毕业生的法定条件,被告北京科技大学拒绝给其颁发毕业证、学位证是违法的,遂向北京市海淀区人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告诉称:我一直以在校生身份在被告北京科技大学参加学习和学校组织的一切活动,完成了学校制定的教学计划,并且学习成绩和毕业论文已经达到高等学校毕业生水平。然而在临近毕业时,被告才通知我所在的系,以我不具备学籍为由,拒绝给我颁发毕业证、学位证和办理毕业派遣手续。被告的这种作法违背了法律规定。请求判令被告:一、为我颁发毕业证、学位证;二、及时有效地为我办理毕业派遣手续;三、赔偿我经济损失3000元;四、在校报上公开向我赔礼道歉,为我恢复名誉;五、承担本案诉讼费。@#
被告辩称:原告田永违反本校《关于严格考试管理的紧急通知》(以下简称068号通知)中的规定,在补考过程中夹带写有电磁学公式的纸条被监考教师发现,本校决定对田永按退学处理,通知校内有关部门给田永办理退学手续。给田永本人的通知,也已经通过校内信箱送达到田永所在的学院。至此,田永的学籍已被取消。由于田永不配合办理有关手续,校内的一些部门工作不到位,再加上部分教职工不了解情况等原因,造成田永在退学后仍能继续留在学校学习的事实。但是,校内某些部门及部分师默许田永继续留在校内学习的行为,不能代表本校意志,也不证明田永的学籍已经恢复。没有学籍就不具备高等院校大学生的毕业条件,本校不给田永颁发毕业证、学位证和不办理毕业派遣手续,是正确的。法院应当依法驳回田永的诉讼请求。@#
@#
北京市海淀区人民法院经审理查明:@#
1994年9月,原告田永考入被告北京科技大学下属的应用科学学院物理化学系,取得本科生学籍。1996年2月29日,田永在参加电磁学课程补考过程中,随身携带写有电磁学公式的纸条,中途去厕所时,纸条掉出,被监考教师发现。监考教师虽未发现田永有偷看纸条的行为,但还是按照考场纪律,当即停止了田永的考试。北京科技大学于同年3月5日按照“068号通知”第三条第五项关于“夹带者,包括写在手上等作弊行为者”的规定,认定田永的行为是考试作弊,根据第一条“凡考试作弊者,一律按退学处理”的规定,决定对田永按退学处理,4月10日填发了学籍变动通知。但是,北京科技大学没有直接向田永宣布处分决定和送达变更学籍通知,也未给田永办理退学手续。田永继续在该校以在校大学生的身份参加正常学习及学校组织的活动。@#
1996年3月,原告田永的学生证丢失,未进行1995至1996学年第二学期的注册。同年9月,被告北京科技大学为田永补办了学生证。其后,北京科技大学每学年均收取田永交纳的教育费,并为田永进行注册、发放大学生补助津贴,还安排田永参加了大学生毕业实习设计,并由论文指导教师领取了学校发放的毕业设计结业费。田永还以该校大学生的名义参加考试,先后取得了大学英语四级、计算机应用水平测试BASIC语言成绩合格证书。田永在该校学习的4年中,成绩全部合格,通过了毕业实习、设计及论文答辩,获得优秀毕业论文及毕业总成绩全班第九名。北京科技大学对以上事实没有争议。 @#
被告北京科技大学的部分教师曾经为原告田永的学籍一事向原国家教委申诉,原国家教委高校学生司于1998年5月18日致函北京科技大学,认为该校对田永违反考场纪律一事处理过重,建议复查。同年6月5日,北京科技大学复查后,仍然坚持原处理结论。@#
1998年6月,被告北京科技大学的有关部门以原告田永不具有学籍为由,拒绝为其颁发毕业证,进而也未向教育行政部门呈报毕业派遣资格表。田永所在的应用学院及物理化学系认为,田永符合大学毕业和授予学士学位的条件,由于学校正在与学校交涉田永的学籍问题,故在向学校报送田永所在班级的授予学士学位表时,暂时未给田永签字,准备等田永的学籍问题解决后再签,学校也因此没有将田永列入授予学士学位资格名单内交本校的学位评定委员会审核。@#
被告北京科技大学为此案向法院提交的证据有:1、原告田永于1996年2月29日写下的书面检查和两位监考教师的书面证言,这些证据能够证明田永在考试中随身携带了写有与考试科目有关内容的纸条,但没有发现其偷看的事实;2、原国家教委《关于加强考试管理的紧急通知》、校发(94)第068号《关于严格考试管理的紧急通知》、原国家教委有关领导的讲话,这三份材料不属于《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十三条规定人民法院审理行政案件时可以参照的规章范畴;3、北京科技大学教务处关于田永等三人考试过程中作弊按退学处理的请示、期末考试工作简报、学生学籍变动通知单,以上书证能够证明北京科技大学于1996年4月10日作出过对田永按退学处理的决定,但不能证明该决定已经直接送达给田永,也不能证明该决定已经实际执行;4、原国家教委高校学生司函、北京科技大学对田永考试作弊一事复查结果的报告,这些书证能够证明北京科技大学部分教师、原国家教委高校学生司对田永被处分一事的意见,以及北京科技大学在得知这两方面意见后的态度;5、北京科技大学的《关于给予北京科技大学学生王斌勒令退学处分的决定》一份、《期末考试工作简报》7份,以上书证与本案没有必然联系,不能成为本案的证据。此外,北京科技大学在诉讼期间,未经法院同意自行调取了唐有兰等教师的证言、考试成绩单、1998届学生毕业资格的学士学位审批表、学生登记卡、学生档案登记单、学校保卫处户口办公室书证、学籍变动通知单第四联和第五联、无机94班人数统计单等书证交给法院,这些证明由于不符合行政诉讼法三十三条关于“在诉讼过程中,被告不得自行向原告和证人收集证据”的规定,不能作为认定本案事实的根据。@#
原告田永提交的证据有:1、1996年9月被告北京科技大学为田永补办的学生证(学号为9411026),能够证明北京科技大学不仅从1996年9月为田永补办了学生证,并且还逐学期为田永进行了学籍注册,使其具有北京科技大学本科学生学籍的事实;2、献血证、重修证、准考证、收据及收费票据、英语四级证书、计算机BASIC语言证书、田永同班同学的两份证言、实习单位书证、结业费发放书证,以上证据能够证明田永在北京科技大学的管理下,以该校大学生的资格学习、考试和生活的相关事实;3、学生成绩单,能够证明田永在该校四年的学习成绩;4、加盖北京科技大学主管部门印章的北京地区普通高校毕业生就业推荐表,能够证明北京科技大学已经承认田永具备应届毕业生的资格;5、北京科技大学应用科学学院的证明,证实田永已经通过了全部考试及论文答辩,其掌握的知识和技能已具备了毕业生的资格,待田永的学籍问题解决后就为其在授予学位表上签字的事实。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥700.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese