BANGALORE UNIVERSITY Vs. RAM NARAYAN SAH PRABHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are presented by the Bangalore University, against the order of the learned single Judge quashing the order passed against respondents-1 to 25 by which the performance of each of them in the February-March, 1989 B.E. degree examination was cancelled.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are these: On 13-3-1989 students of B.M.S. Engineering College, Bangalore, were answering the question papers on the subject called Hydrology and Irrigation, in Room No.111 of the College. The examination commenced from 2.00 P.M. It appears, that when the examination was going on, a Vigilance Flying Squad appointed by the University to check the menace of mass malpractice, at all the examinations of the University, made a surprise entry into the aforesaid examination room at about 3.30 p.m. The Squad gave a report of the same date to the University Registrar (Evaluation), giving the names of the students who according to the squad were found indulging in examination malpractice. On the basis of the said report, charges were framed against each of the respondents, alleging that they had indulged in malpractice. The article of the charge also stated that the charge was supported by the document viz., report of the Squad and each of the candidates was called upon to file statement of defence. Thereafter, they were called upon to appear before the Enquiry Committee. The enquiry committee appears to have put some questions to each of the students. The questions and answers which are stereo typed are as below: -

(3.) The learned Judge, allowed the writ petitions holding that no enquiry was held in accordance with the ordinance prescribing the procedure for an enquiry, regarding examination malpractice and on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Committee stood vitiated due to errors apparent on the face of the record. The learned Judge also held that the Vice-Chancellor had no power under sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act to pass the impugned order as the said power was conferred on the Syndicate under Section 62 of the Act. He further held that there was no application of mind by the Vice-Chancellor as the note was put up by the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor had only agreed with it.