PATEL PARTH NARESHKUMAR Vs. GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERCITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Dipen A. Desai, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 - Gujarat Technological University, in each of the petitions. Respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court, pursuant to service of notice. As no relief has been sought against respondent No.2, in any of the petitions, the Court does not consider it necessary to issue Rule to the said respondent. As common questions of fact and law arise in the petitions, they are being heard together and decided by a common judgment. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts as stated in Special Civil Application No.14430/2011, shall be noticed.

(2.) This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, inter-alia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 27.07.2011, passed by respondent No.1 - University, whereby the results of the petitioner in all subjects of the current Semester Examination, have been cancelled, and they have been debarred from appearing in the next two Summer/Winter examinations, that are to be conducted by the respondent - University.

(3.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a student of respondent No.2 - Institution, and has passed the 4th Semester, in the course of Civil Engineering. On 31.05.2011, the petitioner appeared in the 3rd Semester Remedial Examination in the subject of Mathematics-III. On 12.07.2011, the petitioner received a notice from respondent No.2, asking him to remain present before respondent No.1, at the stipulated date and time, in connection with the hearing in connection with the use of unfair means in the Examination held by the respondent - University, during May to July, 2011. The petitioner appeared before respondent No.1 on 20.07.2011, as directed. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been provided an opportunity of hearing by respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, he was directed to give a written statement. The petitioner denied the allegation regarding use of unfair means, by giving the statement. However, the impugned order dated 27.07.2011 was issued, holding the petitioner guilty of indulging in unfair means. A penalty as per Clause-3(D) of Circular dated 03.11.2010 of the University has been imposed upon the petitioner. Hence, the petition.