RAM NARAYAN SAH PRABHAT Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invalidation of Communication No. Ex. MPEC: ENGG: 89 dated May 12, 1989, of the Bangalore University ("the University") issued to the principal of the B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore ("the College"), by which the benefit of performance of 28 examinees in all their papers (Theory and Practical) of the IV Year B.E. Examination held by the University in February/March 1989 has been denied, is sought in these writ petitions.

(2.) Material facts and circumstances leading upto the communication, invalidation of which is sought, are: 28 examinees named in the communication along with 10 other examinees were answering the Hydrology and Irrigation paper of three hours duration in Room No. 101 of the College from 2-00 P.M., on March 13,1989, under a seating arrangement, which was as follows: Entrance E83BA008 E83BA081 018401088 E82BA001 18 60 89 08 29 62 90 18 30 63 92 35 38 68 93 37 43 106 103 40 45 108 104 76 52 111 105 81 57 114 110 91(Absent) 58 111 125 The University's Examination Vigilance Flying Squad ("the Squad"), which made a surprise check of the said room at about 3-30 P.M., gave to University's Registrar (Evaluation) a report of its check by means of a letter dated March 13,1989, the terms of which, omitting its formal parts, read : "Sir, Sub:- Large scale malpractice in Room No. 1, BMS (D) College of Engineering. Ref:- (a) C. 4.04 Hydrology and Irrigation Engineering IV Year B.E. (Civil) Exam. March 1989 Time 2-5 P.M. This is to inform you that, when the squad team entered Room No. 1 of the said College, we were perplexed to see that every candidate more or less were indulging in malpractice. The m.p. was rampant and this papers manuscript related to m.p. both printed/ photostat/ written were strewn all over the room. When we started booking the cases students objected and obstructed and came in our way of booking. Further I would like to write that in support of this we have seized the invigilators diary. In support of this i e.w.r.t. rampant m.p. We have obtained the signatures from the room invigilators and the chief superintendent. In total 38 candidates were writing their examinations, to that effect are enclosing a copy of the invigilators diary. In view of the above facts, I request you to kindly declare the day's examination taken by the said students should be declared null and void. Yours faithfully." (Emphasis supplied)

(3.) The above letter led to the issuance by the Member-Secretary of the Universitys Mai-practice Enquiry Committee ("The Enquiry Committee") to each of the examinees, who had taken their examination in Room No. 101 of the College, a common form of Charge Memo dated March 27,1989, which read: