RAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order in Annexure-IV communicated by the Deputy Registrar University of Allahabad, cancelling the petitioner Raj Kumar Singh's result of B.A. Part II examination of 1990, for issue of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner's result of B.A. Part II examination of 1990 and to allow the petitioner to appear in B.A. Part III examination of 1990.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner appeared in B.A. Part II examination held by the respondents in year 1990. The roll number allotted to him was 44160. On 21-7-90 the petitioner was appearing in the examination of first paper of Philosophy and was busy in answering the questions in the copy supplied to him. A flying squad entered the room. It appears that some other student sitting in the same room threw away half page of printed material which came near the desk of the petitioner. The flying squad found the said half page of printed material from near the desk of the petitioner. The flying squad alleged that the aforesid half page of the printed material was found near the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was fastened with the liability of possession of unauthorised material. The petitioner tried to explain the entire situation, but the flying squad was not convinced by the petitioner's oral explanation. Thereafter some signatures were obtained from the petitioner on some forms with blank spaces. The petitioner was not aware of what was written by the authorities on the spot in the said room. It is alleged that the aforesaid half page of printed material was not found either from the body of the petitioner or from the desk of the petitioner or from within the copy of the petitioner. After the said incident copy 'A' of the petitioner was taken by the invigilator. Thereafter the petitioner was supplied with a copy 'B'.

(3.) The petitioner was allowed to appear in all the other papers in all three subjects offered by him. If the result of the petitioner is declared by the respondents, the petitioner is hopeful that he would be declared passed. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of show cause notice dated 4-9-90. The notice is vague ambiguous and general in nature. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to give a paper reply to the said notice. However, the petitioner had submitted his written explanation dated 4-10-90 to the said notice. The petitioner was not given personal hearing or personal appearance before the Examination Committee. On 23-2-91 the result of B.A. Part II of 1990 was declared by the respondent No. 2. But the result of the petitioner was shown that the result of the petitioner of B.A. Part II examination of 1990 has been cancelled as a punishment for attempting using unfairmeans in B.A. Part II examination 1990. The petitioner was not supplied with the report of the Superintendent or the flying squad or the copy of the printed material alleged to have been recovered from his possession. The petitioner was not supplied with copy of the order/judgment of the Committee constituted under Ordinance No. 14. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the unauthorised material was found on the petitioner's person, desk, chair, or table or at any place within the petitioner's reach in the examination hall.