SURESHKUMAR NAVALSINH BHURA Vs. CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED advocates for the contesting parties were heard at length yesterday. Learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondents had continued their submission until about 45 -50 minutes after court hours and concluded their submissions as regards the request for admission of the petition around 5.50 p.m. yesterday. The said aspect is recorded on 5.12.2013, which reads thus:

(2.) THE petitioners in group of these petitions are students prosecuting their studies with the respondent No.1 Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Open University. In this group of petitions, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:

(3.) SO far as the relevant facts are concerned, the petitioners have stated, inter alia, that the petitioners are prosecuting studies in B.Ed. course offered by the respondent university. The course is offered by way of 'distant course -learning' is of two years duration. The course includes total 8 subjects. The petitioners have clarified that in the first year, 5 subjects are included, whereas second year comprises 3 subjects and the students are expected to clear the course within a span of 5 years. It appears that first year examination for 5 subjects was held from 28.11.2012. One of the examinations centre was at D.G. Shikshan Mahavidyalaya at Jamnagar. It is claimed that the petitioners appeared in the said examination and answered the papers of all 5 subjects. The petitioners have also claimed that in the result which was declared, the petitioners were declared successful, however, subsequently, the said result was withdrawn by the respondents. The petitioners have claimed that before the result was withdrawn, they could not take out copies/printouts of the result which was put on the website of the respondent university. It is further alleged by the petitioners that after the result was declared, the respondents issued a show cause notice, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners indulged in unfair practice / mal -practice while answering the paper of ES -346 by virtue of the said notice, the petitioners' explanation / response was called for. The petitioners have asked to submit their response on or before 10.8.2013. The petitioners have claimed that their replies stating the facts and their explanation were submitted to the competent authority. It is also claimed that the petitioners even offered to appear in the re -examination and answer the papers once again. It appears that by virtue of subsequent communication issued on or around 27.8.2013, the petitioners were also called upon to appear before the competent authority on 26.9.2013. However, entire process was mere eyewash and they were not offered actual and effective opportunity of hearing or defence. The petitioners have alleged that they were not even allowed to put forward their submission and explain their case. The petitioners have further alleged that they were forced to admit their mistakes and since the petitioners did not admit the mistake, the impugned order dated 30.10.2013 cancelling their entire result came to be passed and by the said order not only the result of one subject for which the notice was issued, but result of all subjects and debarring them from appearing in the examination for two years, is passed. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said order. Hence, present petition.