R C JAYAPRASAD Vs. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. No. 3220 of 1983 and Writ Appeal No. 127 of 1984 are by the same person. When he approached the University for registration to the B. Se. (Engineering) Semester Examinations (III to VII Semesters) of April May 1982 and October/November 1982, the University rejected the same by Exts. P9 and P10 memos dated 19-10-82. O. P. 3220 of 1983 was filed for quashing those memos and for a writ of mandamus directing the University to forbear from giving effect to the order, debarring him from appearing in examinations. Subsequently, the University enquired into the acts and. conduct of the petitioner. A member of the Syndicate who enquired into the matter filed a report to the Syndicate, finding the petitioner guilty of using false and forged Pre Degree Mark List for getting admission in the Engineering College. Thereupon the petitioner was asked to show cause why Pre Degree Examination and B.Sc. (Engineering) Examination of I to VII Semesters be not cancelled and he be debarred permanently from taking any University Examinations in the future. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. After considering the reply and the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Syndicate by Ext. P14 order dated 10-10-1983. imposed the punishment already proposed. O. P. No. 9989 of 1983 was filed challenging Ext. P14 order. When it came up for admission a learned Single Judge dismissed the same. So the Writ Appeal 127 of 1984 has been preferred. Since Exts. P9 and P10 memos no longer subsist by virtue of Ext. P14, O. P. No. 3220 of 1983 has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of a batch of Original Petitions by judgment dated 23-1-1981, detected various irregularities in the conduct of examinations, preparation of mark lists etc. In pursuance to the said decision when the authorities enquired into the various aspects relating to the conduct of the examinations, and admission of students to professional courses, a large number of malpractices came to light. Bogus and fake mark lists were seen to have been used for securing admission to professional courses like medicine and engineering. It was revealed that the appellant before us had resorted to such a coarse for securing admission to B Sc. (Engineering) course. Consequently proceedings were taken and the University passed Ext. P14 order. That order is under challenge. The main grounds of attack are threefold. They are:

(3.) The first ground of attack is that the Syndicate has no power to pass an order like Ext. P14. This ground of attack was not taken before the Syndicate when the petitioner filed his objection in pursuance to Ext. P 12 memo dated 7-4-1983. The reply to Ext. P12 memo is marked in this case as Ext. P13. Nowhere in the said objection had the petitioner taken the contention that the Syndicate did not possess authority to impose the punishment suggested in Ext. P12. When the lack of jurisdiction of the Syndicate was not urged before the Syndicate, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise that issue in exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. In Trivandrum Cooperative District Wholesale Society v. Dy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Trivandrum and others ( 1975 KLT 589 ), a Division Bench of this court observed: