DEVANG V DESAI Vs. REGISTRAR SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners students have come with a grievance against the order of the Syndicate dated 17th April 1993 holding that these students had adopted unfair means at the S.Y. B.Com. examination in which they appeared in May 1992 and cancelling their results which were declared on 14th October 1992 as also debarring them from appearing at any of the examination conducted by the University or from filling up terms in any of the affiliated colleges upto end of the education year 1993-94. A direction was also sought on the respondents to abstain from preventing the petitioners from appearing at the T.Y. B. Com. examination which was to be held from 26th April 1993. It is common ground that these petitioners were allowed to appear at the said T.Y. B. Com. examination by an order of this Court made in this petition on 23rd April 1993 and their results were to be declared only after further orders. Accordingly, these petitioners appeared at the T.Y. B.Com. examination held by the respondent University from 26th April 1993 the results of which have been withheld till now.

(2.) The petitioners' result of the S.Y. B.Com. examination at which they appeared in May 1992 was initially withheld. They were called upon to submit their explanation by communciation dated 28th/29th August 1992 at Annexure A collectively to this petition in respect of unfair means allegedly adopted by them. The allegation was that petitioner No. 1 (Seat No. 4751) and petitioner No. 2 (Seat No. 4750) had copied or allowed to be copied certain answers in their answer books. Similar allegation was made against the petitioner No. 3 (Seat No. 4758) and petitioner No. 4 (Seat No. 4759). The petitioners were issued notices on 1st October 1992 as per Annexure B by the University stating that "ACHHAR Committee" (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") constituted by the University was to convene on 9th October 1992 and the petitioners may appear before the Committee to show cause against the irregularities and malpractices which were alleged against them. It appears that the Committee which convened on 9th Octorber 1992 considered the case of the petitioners and found them not guilty. Thereafter, the University declared the results of these petitioners by its Notification No. 750 of 1992 dated 14th October 1992 at Annexure C to this petition declaring petitioner No. 1 (Seat No. 4751) as having passed in second class, petitioner No. 2 (Seat No. 4750) and petitioner No. 4 (Seat No. 4759) as having passed in pass class and allowing the petitioner No. 3 (Seat No. 4758) to keep terms for T.Y. B.Com. examination though he was an unsuccessful candidate. All the petitioners thus, joined T.Y. B.Com. class for further studies and filled up their terms. However, they were once again required to appear before the Committee on 6th March 1993. This was done pursuant to the decision of the Syndicate dated 1st March 1993 by which the Syndicate remanded the case of the petitioners to the Committee for recommendation while accepting the earlier reprot in respect of two other candidates (Seat Nos. 4755 and 4756) against whom similar allegations were made. According to the petitioners a partisan approach was adopted in favour of these two students because one of them was a professor's son. After the remand the Committee reconsidered the matter by giving a fresh opportunity to the petitioners and was once again of the view that these petitioners were not found to have adopted unfair means at the examination in question and that their results should be declared. Out of 5 members of the Committee, only one member dissented. Thereafter, the matter came up before the Syndicate again and the Syndicate by its decision dated 22nd April 1993 resolved by a majority view not to accept the recommendations of the Committee and to impose punishment on the petitioners. It was clarified that if the petitioners filled in their terms they would be allowed to appear at the examination after the expiry of the period of punishment during which they were debarred from appearing at any University examination.

(3.) It was strongly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this was a case of "no evidence" and barring the answer books there was no material on the basis of which it could be said that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 or petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 copied any answers from each other or from other sources. It was contended that the Committee after careful consideration of the allegations against these students found that the allegations of their having adopted unfair means at the said examination were not established. The Syndicate without giving any opportunity to the petitioners took a contrary view violating the principles of natural justice and punished the petitioners. It was also contended that the Syndicate adopted a partisan approach against the petitioners by accepting the recommendations of the committee which were in favour of two students (Seat Nos. 4755 and 4756) against whom the allegations were similar, because, one of them was a professor's son. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the petitioners were treated with unequal hands. It was contended that because of groupism in the Syndicate the petitioners had suffered and the decision of the Syndicate was mala fide. It was finally contended that the University was estopped from punishing the petitioners having declared the results earlier after the report of the Committee exonerating the petitioners. After their results were declared, they pursued further studies, invested time and energy and now are told, suddenly, that their earlier results were cancelled.