GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. CHETAN N SAVLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5528 of 1987. This is a case in which a student who is a gold medallist is declared as failed and has been debarred for a period of one year for the alleged offence of allowing his paper to be copied by the student sitting behind him in the examination hall. This is the examination for Second B. Com. held at May-June 1987 The respondent was sitting ahead of the candidate who is alleged to have copied and there is a statement of the Observer to the effect that the candidate who has the Number 6384 was found copying the question No. 21 Examination Number of the respondent is 6383. The learned single Judge after elaborately discussing the materials on record observed that the only evidence against the respondent is the belief or inference of the Observer based on the manner in which the respondent was sitting and allowing one Hina to copy from his answer book. This belief of the Observer according to the learned single Judge can be hardly considered to be evidence or proof of guilt. Finally the learned single Judge allowed the Special Civil Application. It is as against this order. the Gujarat University has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Mr. Shelat the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Court should not have interfered with the finding arrived at by the University on the basis of the Report and Statement of the Observer. According to the learned Counsel it is not a case of no evidence and the conclusion was arrived at by the University after appreciating the statement of the Observer and his report. The University according to Mr. Shelat took into consideration the sitting arrangement and the normal posture in which a student sits while writing the examination before it passed the impugned order. Mr. Shelat further contended that if it is felt that the statement of the person who copied has to be obtained and enquiry should have been held with that record and with other relevant materials the University is prepared to hold that fresh enquiry. For this purpose this Court may send back the case to the University with a direction to hold a fresh enquiry in this matter.

(3.) We are not able to appreciate both these arguments. The Observer has made a report in the question paper having the Number 6384 that this candidate was found COpying question No. 2(a) from the candidate having Number 6383. In the answer paper of the candidate having No. 6383 the Observer has stated that the candidate having Number 6383 allowed copying to candidate having No. 6384 in question No. 2(a). In the notice which is Annexure B to the Special Civil Application it has been stated: <SI>" When the examinations above mentioned of this University were being conducted at Ahmedabad Centre then on dated 6-6-1987 during the question paper of the subject mathematics during the time of examination in the examination hall you were allowing seat No. 6384 to copy down writing relating to the said subject from your answer book."</SI> <SI1>EDUCATION - A STUDENT, WHO IS A GOLD MEDALLIST, IS DECLARED AS FAILED AND DEBARRED FOR ONE YEAR FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE OF ALLOWING HIS PAPER TO BE COPIED BY STUDENT SITTING BEHIND HIM - SINGLE JUDGE DID NOT CONSIDER THE BELIEF OF OBSERVER TO BE EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF GUILTY - LPA BY APPELLANT GUJARAT UNIVERSITY - HELD, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE MUST BE OBSERVED - NON-OBSERVANCE OF RULE RENDERS ACTION OF UNIVERSITY ILLEGAL - APPEAL DISMISSED. </SI1> Even though such a notice refers to the whole of the paper in mathematics no evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. The statement of the observer definitely states that the respondent was sitting in such a position that the candidate sitting behind could see and that is his view. As far as the respondent in concerned he has made a statement that he was sitting in an oblique direction to gain support that whether the candidate who is alleged to have copied was writing from his answer book or not is not known to him and that he was engaged in writing. Thus it is clear from the report and the statement referred above the inference that the respondent allowed copying cannot at all be drawn. Such an inference in our opinion if drawn can be considered only as perverse.