VIJAI KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MEERUT UNIVERSITY MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. D. Agrawal, J. The petitioner is a student of Meerut College, Meerut appeared in B. A. (Part II) Examination, 1981 conducted by the Meerut University. On Apr. 7, 1981, he was caught using unfair means in answering English Literature (Paper I ). The petitioner was again caught adopting unfair means in answering English Literature (Paper II) on April 20, 1981. In connection with the English literature (Paper I) he appeared before the Sub-Committee of the University on October 5, 1981. Thereafter on Nov. 16, 1981, the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Committee in relation to the other examination paper. The petitioner submitted an application to the Meerut University through the Meerut College for appearing in B. A. (Part II) Examination, 1982. In Column 8 of this application, he stated that his examination in B. A. (Part II), 1981 had been cancelled upon the charge of adopting unfair means. The application was received in the College on or about Nov. 27, 1981. Admit Card was issued to the petitioner in the ordinary course. He appeared in Military Science (Practical) held in March, 1982 and in the written examination commencing in April, 1982. On 5th April, 1982, the petitioner received two communications from the University in separate covers. In one of them, it was stated in regard to English literature (Paper I) that his entire examination, 1981 was cancelled. In the other relating to English literature (Paper II), the communication said that his entire examination of 1981 was cancelled and further he was debarred from appearing in any University Examination up to 1982. Despite this communication, the petitioner appeared in the rest of the papers of B. A. (Part II) Examination, 1982. The results were announced on July 30, 1982. The result of the petitioner was however, withheld. He made representation on August 7, 1982 but to no effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) DISPUTE does not exist on the point that in B. A. (Part II) Examination, 1981 held in April, 1981 the petitioner was caught adopting unfair means on two different dates. The Examiner in each of these cases reported that he made use of unauthorised material in answering specific questions - see Annexure C. A. I and C. A. II. In each of these cases on being caught the petitioner had begged to be excused for the future.

(3.) THE Supreme Court further observed that it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law. THE University authorities had time and opportunity to scrutinise the form in order to find out whether it was in order. It was neither a case of suggestio falsi, or suppressio veri. THE other argument for the respondent that the appellant had not obtained prior permission of the employer was negatived on the ground that there was no statutory provision which required that candidates attending the evening law class who are in service should first get the prior permission of their superior officers. A decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh viz. , Premji Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya v. V. C. Ravishankar University Raipur, (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 194) was cited with approval. That related to scrutiny as to requisite attendance of the candidates and it was held that the discretion having been clearly exercised in permitting the petitioner to appear, it could not later be withdrawn. THE factual position and the relevant provisions in the case of Shri Krishan, (AIR 1976 SC 376) (supra) were thus materially different and, consequently, this does not assist the petitioner. THEse special features of that case were noticed also recently by another Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member in the case of Atul Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. , (Writ Petn. No. 14415 of 1982) decided on March 14, 1983 (reported in AIR 1983 All 281 ).