CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS Vs. G S SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The first respondent was a student of B. E. Degree pursuing his study in the Engineering College, respondent 2.

(3.) On 14/12/1989 the Principal of the second respondent- college brought to the notice of the Madurai Kamaraj University (the controller of Examinations) certain malpractices committed by students in the Examinations. These malpractices affected innocent and intelligent students. Inter alia the Principal subsequently referred to the case of the first respondent who interchanged his roll number 533276 with that of another student (K. R. Gandhi) whose roll number was 533275. It wasstated that during the academic years 1986-87 to 1989-90 in regard to semester examinations III and IV, V and VI, the first respondent and the said Gandhi used to be seated one behind the other in the examination hall. In view of the good academic record of said Gandhi who used to answer better than the first respondent, he was systematically interchanging his roll number with that of Gandhi on the answer books in some of the subjects in all the four semester examinations. This resulted in first respondent passing all the examinations concerned with good marks in those subjects whenever the roll number was interchanged, while at the same time Gandhi failed in those subjects concerned. However, Gandhi took supplementary examinations and secured good marks in all those subjects in which he had failed in the main examination. Gandhi applied for revaluation of the examination papers concerned held in April 1989. It was then discovered that the roll number on the answer books was tampered with by correction of the last digit "5" into "6". On further examination of first respondent's answer books it was found that in his answer books the last digit which should have been "6" had been corrected to that of digit "5". Thereupon, the matter was referred to the syndicate Sub-Committee on Discipline of the University. The first respondent was called upon to appear before the said Sub-Committee. The matter was enquired into. Though initially the first respondent denied the knowledge of correction, at the second sitting of enquiry he gave a statement admitting the commission of malpractice. Without straight away proceeding to take action, the Principal was directed to be present before the Sub-Committee and he was also enquired.