SULFIKAR ALI P T Vs. KANNUR UNIVERSITY; CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS; SYNDICATE OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY; PRINCIPAL, CENTURY INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kannur University.

(2.) The petitioner appeared for the Final BDS Part-I Degree Examination conducted by the Kannur University in September 2008. On the ground that the answers to two questions in the subject 'Orthodontics' Section A are similar to that in the text book of Orthodontics by Balaji, the Controller of Examinations issued Ext.P2 memo dated 20.11.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him for malpractice in the examination. On receipt of the said memo, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 9.12.2008 denying the said allegation. This writ petition was thereafter filed challenging Ext.P2 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to publish the result of the Final BDS examination. The petitioner contends that the mere similarity in the answers to the contents of the text book of Orthodontics cannot be a ground to hold that he had committed malpractice in the examination and that in the absence of an allegation that he had copied from a book or notes or from other answer scripts, the respondents are not entitled to take action against him for malpractice in the examination.

(3.) The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that after enquiry by a committee consisting of three experts, a report was submitted wherein the committee had come to the conclusion that no punitive action should be taken against the candidate. It is also stated that the report of the enquiry committee was placed before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate which resolved to cancel the examination of the petitioner and other candidates. It is also stated that the Standing Committee had also resolved to recommend to the Syndicate to take appropriate action against the College. The second respondent has further stated that the recommendation was approved by the Pro Vice Chancellor exercising the powers of the Vice Chancellor and that the appearance of the candidate including the petitioner in the final BDS Part-I examination stands cancelled.