LAWS(ALL)-2000-8-40

JAYANTI PRASAD DWIVEDI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

Decided On August 02, 2000
JAYANTI PRASAD DWIVEDI Appellant
V/S
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1998 of a learned single Judge by which Writ Petition No. 43786 of 1997 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant appeared in LL.B. IInd Year examination of the year 1993, which was held in the year 1997. It is the case of the University that while appearing in the IVth paper on 9.4.1997, the appellant was caught red-handed and some printed material relating to the aforesaid paper was seized from his possession. A notice was given to the appellant and. thereafter, by the order dated 8.12.1997. the examination of LL.B. IInd year of the year 1993 in which he was appearing in 1997 was cancelled. The appellant preferred the writ petition challenging the aforesaid decision dated 8.12.1997 of the University but the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 17.8.1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 8.12.1997 has been passed by the University without Issuing any show cause notice and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The judgment and order of the learned single Judge does not show that this point had been urged by the appellant at the time of hearing of the writ petition. On the contrary, what was urged before the learned single Judge was that the material which is alleged to have been seized from the possession of the appellant had not been used by him during the course of the examination. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the use of the material would not make any difference as the mere possession of the material relating to the subject was sufficient to prove the charge of using unfairmeans and on this finding, dismissed the writ petition. However, as the question of career of a student is involved, we permitted the learned counsel to urge the contention regarding not giving of an opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the charge levelled against him.