V PRAKASH Vs. ANNA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the assistance of this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the norms of punishment to candidates of the respondent-University comprised in Reference No. 26954/DWC. C.5/96 dated 30-12-1996 and the consequential decision of the 2nd respondent punishing the petitioner contained in the Minutes of the 33rd Meeting of the second respondent held on 16-12-1996 and quash the same and also direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to proceed with the course of study and pass such further orders.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner had applied for admission to the First B.E. course in the Anna University during the academic year 1994-95 and on consideration of the claims of the petitioner including the marks secured by him in the Plus Two examination and in the written test conducted by the respondent-University, he was selected for admission to the First B.E. course for the year 1994-95. It is further stated that he underwent the First Year course which includes the first and the second year semesters during the same academic year and was successful in the Second Year B.E. course comprising the third and fourth semesters during the academic year 1995-96, the petitioner appeared and passed in all but one paper in the third and fourth semester examinations. One paper in the third semester could not be attended, since he was unwell and the paper was carried over during the fifth semester. The fifth semester examinations commenced in August, 1996 and ended in December, 1996. He also wrote the incomplete paper in the third semester along with the fifth semester examinations. On 5-12-1996, the petitioner went to the examination hall to attend the examination. By mistake and due to absent-mindedness, the petitioner took his purse, which contained a calculator, some library card with the Lab manual and other working papers and placed them in a corner of the big drawing table. Even though the petitioner did not have any occasion to open the same, when the invigilator came and noticed the purse with these contents, suspected him of possessing incriminating materials and did not allow him to write the examination, even though the petitioner submitted that he had brought it by mistake in a hurry and had not touched the same. The invigilator was not satisfied with the answers and he was asked to appear before the Dean. Before the Dean also, the petitioner explained what had happened and on his direction, the petitioner gave a statement as to how he had brought the purse into the Hall. The petitioner gave a written statement stating that the same was brought by mistake and he had no intention of using the same. The petitioner was thereafter not allowed to sit for examination on that day, though for subsequent days, he wrote the examinations and completed the fifth semester. On 16-12-1996, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Discipline and Welfare Committee of the respondent-University, before whom also, the petitioner explained as to what had happened on 5-12-1996. The sixth semester course commenced in January, 1997 and the petitioner also joined the same. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the 2nd respondent informing him about the punishment the respondent had imposed on him. By that letter, the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of cancellation of the registration and enrolment done for all the courses during the fifth semester, with a further direction that the petitioner will not be permitted to register and enroll for any course during the following semesters including the summer term. The petitioner was also directed to register for the fifth semester again when they are offered next, i.e. August, 1997.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the punishment that is imposed on him is illegal and harsh, and, therefore, he made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University in January, 1997. There was no reply from the Vice-Chancellor. Repeated reminders were also sent for reconsideration of the punishment and the appeal to the Vice-Chancellor was without any success.