UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. VANDANA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the University against the order of the learned single Judge by which he allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent and quashed the impugned order, dated 26-10-1977 by which the respondent had been disqualified for passing the B.A. (Pass) Part II examination held in April, 1977 and had also been debarred from appearing in any examination of the University for a further period of one academic year, i.e., 1977-78.

(2.) Ordinance XA framed by the University deals with disorderly conduct and use of unfair means in the examination and the procedure to deal with such cases. Clause l(d) defines the use of dishonest or unfair means in the examination to include:

(3.) The respondent took B.A. (Pass) Part II examination in April, 1977. One of her subjects was also English (Paper II). Her Roll No. was 28031 and the Roll Numbers of the other two students of the same college were 28032 and 28033. The seating plan showed that the Roll Numbers 28032 and 28033 were seated in the same row behind the respondent. It appears that the examiner of the paper part II reported to the University that there were similarities in the answers to question' I (a), (c) & (f) of respondent No. 1 (Roll No. 28031) and those of other two candidates (Roll Nos. 28032 and 28033). On that basis the respondent was asked to show cause by the Univfersity by its letter of 5-9-1977 informing her that the examiner had reported that in paper II English of B.A. (Pass) Part II she had resorted to the use of unfair means i.e. taking assistance in answering question I (a), (c), (f) from Roll No. 28032 and 28033. The respondent denied the allegations and also appeared before the Examination Disciplinary Committee on 10-9-1977. At that interview EDC took the view that the allegations communicated to respondent was that she had taken assistance in answering question from Roll No. 28032 and 28033 but that there could be two other possible ways in which the candidate might have resorted to the use of unfair means firstly that there could be some common unauthorised material in circulation amongst the candidates and the other that the respondent permitted the girl behind her to copy the question from her answer book and the second girl did likewise. They, therefore, put these possibilities to the respondent and also confronted her with the close similarities between the answers given to these three questions by her and the other two candidates. The committee after consideration of her replies came to the conclusion that one of the methods i.e., either there being some unauthorised material in circulation amongst the candidates or that the respondent had permitted the other girls to copy from her answer sheet was resorted to, and concluded that this could not have been done without her connivance. They, therefore, recommended that she be disqualified from passing the examination held in April, 1977 and also appearing in the examination for academic year 1977-78. The matter was then referred to the Executive Council who on 18-10-1977 accepted the recommendation of the committee and made the impugned order. The respondent's representation under clause 11 of the Ordinance X-A for review of her case was rejected. Thereafter the respondent filed a Writ Petition in this court.