RAJESH DAGAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a student of Government Engineering College, Trichur appeared for the first and second semester B.Sc. Engineering Examination conducted in March 1983 at the premises of the college. He had to write a paper on Mechanical Technology between 2 to 5 p.m. on 6/4/1983. At about 3.05 p.m., the two invigilators, Dr. K. Neelakandan (Assistant Professor) and P.G.R. Pillai (First Grade Instructor) saw two pieces of loose sheets of manuscript on the table of the petitioner and they were being referred to by the petitioner. They immediately took away the two loose sheets as well as the answer book and supplied a fresh answer book to him. They reported the matter to the fourth respondent, Chief Superintendent of the Examinations under Ext. R-2(a). The Chief Superintendent conducted preliminary enquiry on the spot and was satisfied that there was a prima facie case. He reported the matter to the University and was directed by the University to conduct a formal enquiry through an enquiry officer appointed by him. The duly appointed enquiry officer, 5th respondent j issued Ext. P-1 memo of two charges, dtd. 15/7/1983 to the petitioner who was given time to offer explanation and to specify the names of witnesses whom he desired to examine at the oral enquiry. The enquiry officer, after enquiry held on 28/7/1983 submitted a report, dtd. 30/7/1983 exonerating the petitioner of the charges. The Syndicate Standing Committee on examination considered the report and the records and found that the first charge namely that he brought into the examination hall written manuscript in violation of R.10(1) of the instructions has been made out and the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory, The Vice-Chancellor of the University, second respondent, in consultation with the Standing Committee, provisionally decided to cancel the first and second semester examination taken by the petitioner in March 1983 and to debar him from taking these two examinations for two more chances, Ext. P-2 memo, dtd. 13/12/1983 was issued to him by the third respondent, Controller of Examinations, to show cause why the provisional decision should note be confirmed. Petitioner submitted reply on consideration of which the Vice-Chancellor passed final order confirming the proposed punishment under Ext. R-2(c) (Ext. P-8) on 19/6/1984. Pending enquiry he was allowed to appear for the third semester examination in August 1983 (result withheld). He was provisionally prompted to V semester subject to his passing I and II semester examinations. He was not allowed to appear afresh for the first and second semester examinations or to appear for the fourth semester examination, as seen in Ext. P-4 memo, dtd. 16/3/1984. It is said the Principal of the College, provisionally allowed the petitioner to write IV semester examination, but the answer sheets have not been valued. Under Ext. P-7 notice, dtd. 13/6/1984, petitioner was removed from the rolls of the fifth semester.

(2.) Petitioner filed this Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 27/6/1984. Evidently, on that day he was not aware of the final order Ext. R-2(c) (Ext. P-8) dtd. 19/6/1984. He prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P-2 memo (finding him guilty and provisionally deciding on the punishment), writs of mandamus commanding the University not to disturb his continued studies in the College, to publish the results of first three semester examinations of the petitioner, to evaluate the answer sheets of the fourth semester examination and to declare his results, to compel the respondents to give a copy of the enquiry report along with testimonies of witnesses and the findings of the Standing Committee. After he was served with a copy of the final order, Ext. R-2(c), he amended the Original Petition challenging the order as also the new regulation of the University stipulating the passing of first two semester examinations in order to attend the fifth semester classes. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, Sec. Officer in the Examination Sec. of the University of Calicut has filed counter affidavit.

(3.) The following grounds are urged in the Original Petition: