GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16. 10. 2008 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent" or "the student") by quashing the decision of the appellant - University by which the University had held the respondent guilty of misconduct at the examination for Second Semester of First LL. B held in April 2008 and giving further directions.

(2.) THE appellant - University conducted examinations for the Second Semester of First LL. B. from 21. 4. 2008 to 25. 4. 2008. The respondent appeared at the said examination in all the five papers. On 25. 4. 2008, the examination was for "banking and Negotiable Instruments Act". The examination was from 10. 30 AM to 1. 30 PM. The appellant - University issued notice dated 9. 5. 2008 calling upon the respondent to give his explanation on 11. 5. 2008 (Sunday) at 12. 00 noon regarding the incident which took place on 25. 4. 2008. The notice was issued on the basis of statements of four persons i. e. University observer - Smt. Rajeshree Mengar, College Principal, Senior Supervisor and Junior Supervisor. It was mentioned that when the examination in Banking Law was going on, on 25. 4. 2008, as per the statements of the above four persons writing was found on the foot-ruler recovered from the petitioner and that the respondent had accordingly committed breach of the instructions issued to the candidates and had thus adopted unfair means at the examination.

(3.) THE notice was received by the respondent late in the evening on Friday, 9th May 2008. Aggrieved by the above notice, the respondent challenged the same by filing a writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 7292 of 2008. The petition was affirmed on 10. 5. 2008 and presented before the Registrar (Judicial) early in the morning of 11. 5. 2008. The respondent (original petitioner) also addressed a letter dated 10. 5. 2008 to the University objecting to the short notice period and calling for various information, documents and material including the foot-ruler, which was relevant to the inquiry. The petitioner's stand in the said petition particularly in paragraph 14 of memo of the petition was as under :-