(1.) The petitioner, who had appeared at the First Semester of the LL.B. (Hons.) Ist Year Examination 2009-10 from the C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad which is affiliated to the University of Allahabad, has sought the quashing of the order dated 1st April, 2010 passed by the University cancelling his LL.B. (Hons.) Ist year First Semester Examination and also debarring him from appearing at the subsequent 2011 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 2nd January, 2010 to the petitioner. The notice stated that on 23rd December, 2009 while the petitioner was giving his "Human Rights" Examination of the LL.B. Ist year, First Semester, he was caught by the flying squad with eighteen hand written chits in his pocket. 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 claims to have submitted two replies to the aforesaid show cause notice mentioning therein that the chits did not belong to him and were not recovered from his pocket but were picked-up from the floor by the flying squad members. He further stated that the chits were not in his handwriting and nor had he used the chits in answering the paper. The University, however, cancelled the LL.B. 2009-10 First Year First Semester Examination result of the petitioner and also debarred him from appearing at the 2011 examination.
(3.) It is the contention of Sri Nigmendra 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 chits were not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and nor had he utilized the same in answering the questions.