P SELVAKUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner was admitted as a student in the Evening College of C. Kandaswamy Naidu College for Men for the B.Com., Degree on 21st July, 1987. It seems that the petitioner had completed the course in May, 1990, that he was granted a transfer certificate by the third respondent college that at the time of completion of course the petitioner had arrears of four papers pertaining to the first year, second year and final year of the B.Com., Degree Examinations, that the petitioner appeared for the examinations Conducted during September. 1990 and attempted to clear the papers which were in arrears at the time of completion of the course, that in the said attempt the petitioner was able to clear one of the papers, that he again appeared for the examination held in March, 1991 and cleared two more papers, out of the then remaining three. THE one more, paper that was to be cleared by the petitioner at that time was the paper in cost Accounting, that the petitioner attempted to clear the said paper also in the subsequent Examinations, that therefore he was a candidate for the examination held during the month of September, 1992 for the B.Com. Degree examination for writing the paper Cost Accounting, that the petitioner, was issued a hall ticket by the second respondent and the centre of the examination being C. Kandaswamy Naidu College for Men, that the examination took place on 24-9-1992, that the, petitioner was expecting his results, and that on 3-12-1992 the petitioner had received a telegram issued by the second respondent, where under he was called upon to appear before a committee on examinations discipline and students welfare on 7-12-1992 at. 10.30 am. THE petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that when he went to the University Centenary Buildings on 7-12-1992 at 10.30 am, he came to know that more than fifty, students who had appeared for the various Degree examinations in C. Kandaswamy Naidu. College for Men were summoned to appear, before the said committee, that when along with the other students he was also waiting, in the corridor of the University Building, one of the University Staff members approached the waiting students with a sheet of paper wherein all the names as well as the Registration Numbers of all the students who were summoned were enlisted and he proceeded to obtain the signature of each of the students who were present there and that the petitioner has also signed the sheet at the appropriate column. It is further stated that one by one four or five students were called into an adjacent room wherein the committee was conducting the enquiry, that the petitioner and some other students were not called for the enquiry, that the, petitioner failed to find out his number in the list of candidates, that while so the petitioner was served with a memorandum, dated 5-1-1993 issued by the second respondent by which the petitioner came to know that the report of the alleged malpractice against the petitioner during the B.Com., Degree examinations resolved that he was found guilty, that the examinations taken by him in September, 1992 were cancelled and that he was debarred from appearing in any University Examination till December, 1998. It is also stated in the affidavit that even though the committee had called upon the petitioner to appear before it for an enquiry, no such enquiry was conducted in his case nor any statements were recorded from him except the signature that was obtained by the University Staff on the date of enquiry. It is further alleged that the second respondent passed the said order without any application of mind, that when a student is alleged to have adopted malpractice in an examination, a proper enquiry should be conducted and that the student should also be given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and that in the instant case the aforesaid principle of natural justice has been flouted by the said committee and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. THE petitioner further alleges that the report which has been considered by the syndicate was not given to the petitioner nor the changes that were levelled against him were made known to him so as to enable him to rebut them, that the question of malpractice was taken up by the first respondent only after the valuation of the papers were completed under the centralised valuation scheme, and that the committee has been totally arbitrary in fixing the period of rustication especially when some of the students who appeared for the examinations along with the petitioner were debarred only for a period of three years and not six years as in his case. It is with these allegations the petitioner has come up before this Court for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) THE Apex Court of the land had a similar occasion to decide a case reported in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & others AIR 1970 S.C. 1969. THE said decision the Supreme Court held as follows: