A ABINASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the writ petitions are directed against identical show cause notice dated 21.5.2010 in No. 184/AUCBE-R/CEO/2010 issued by the first respondent/the Commissioner of Technical Education in and under which, the petitioners/students are called upon to make their representations as to why the result of the first year semester examination held in February 2010 should not be cancelled and as to why they should not be debarred from writing further examination for two more years for the malpractice of mass copying committed by them.

(2.) THE facts leading to the institution of batch of writ petitions are as follows: THE third respondent herein viz., Archana Institute of Technology was established during the academic year 2009-2010 and the petitioners and few others totally numbering 123 students were admitted in four branches of Engineering Courses viz., Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and Computer Science Engineering. THE first semester examinations were held in January 2010 and the results of the first semester examination were declared in February 2010. Out of total strength of 123 students, 122 students passed out in all the subjects having secured marks approximately 82 to 85% and only one student failed in one paper. After the results were declared, the Management published advertisements in the newspaper on 1/3/2010 and 2/3/2010 congratulating all the students. Such paper advertisements, gave rise to representation in the form of complaint on the same day i. e. on 2/3/2010 by the members of the Association of Management of Coimbatore Anna University Affiliated Colleges to the Vice Chancellor, Anna University to the effect that the percentage of pass is highly greater than that of the University average pass percentage and the same is susceptible that some kind of malpractice could have been motivated and encouraged by the authorities who conduced the examination and hence, the same required thorough investigation by appointing a committee to scrutinise the answer scripts.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the said order, the writ petitions were filed by the third respondent college and by some of the students numbering 41 in W.P. Nos. 5552, 5915 and 7568 of 2010 for quashing the order issued by AUCBE dated 16.3.2010 thereby cancelling the first year semester examinations held in the college during January 2010. All the writ petitions were commonly heard and seriously contested by both sides. According to the petitioners/institution as well as the students, the impugned order of cancellation is baseless and unfounded and the same is vitiated by bias as it is based on the enquiry report of the committee consisting of the professors of some of the complainants' colleges and the impugned order is passed without any notice and without any opportunity to the institution as well as the students through personal hearing to disprove the correctness of the enquiry report. The claim of the petitioners is vehemently opposed on the side of the Higher Education Department and the AUCBE on the ground that there is strong proof to show that mass copying was committed in the college and the impugned order of canceling the first year semester examination is passed only in the interest of public at large without any other motive. It is also submitted on behalf of University that the University is willing to appoint a fresh panel, in the event of constitution of the earlier committee being held to be bad, to go into the answer scripts to verify as to whether there was any mass copying or not. The University has also suggested the names of the members of fresh panel of experts.