NITESH KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who had appeared at the L.L.B. Illrd Year Examination 2009 from the University of Allahabad, has sought the quashing of the order dated 6th May, 2009 passed by the University cancelling his LL.B. Illrd year examination and also debarring him from appearing at the subsequent 2010 examination for use of unfair means at the said examination.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that the University issued a show cause notice dated 10th January, 2009 to the petitioner. The notice stated that on 5th January, 2009 while the petitioner was giving his "Moot Court" 7th Semester Examination of the LL.B. Illrd year, the flying squad recovered one hand written chit from him shoes and he had also misbehaved with the members of the flying squad. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation as to why his examination result may not be cancelled and he may not be debarred from appearing at the future examination. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice mentioning therein that he had no connection with the chit which was picked up by the flying squad members from the floor and even though he had repeatedly pointed out that he had no connection with the said chit, the members of the flying squad refused to listen and his repeated pleas that he had no connection with the chit cannot amount to misbehavior with the members of the flying squad. The petitioner also stated that he had obtained first division marks in First Year and Second Year. The University, however, cancelled the LL.B. 2009 examination result of the petitioner and also debarred him from appearing at the 2010 examination.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri K.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the decision that was taken by the Committee constituted by the University to deal with and decide cases relating to unfair means imposed the said punishment on the petitioner without even considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without recording any reasons. It is his submission that the petitioner had not resorted to use of unfair means at the examination as the chit was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and nor had he utilized the same in answering the questions.