ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was listed for admission before us today but since the matter is short and urgent, we proceed to dispose it of finally.

(2.) THE Petitioner had appeared at the third Semester in M.Sc. (Physics) final year of the Gorakhpur University which was held in the month of January, 1983. It has been stated in the writ petition that in respect of Paper No. 10, namely, Group Theory Quantum Scattering and Semetry Properties of Matter, the Petitioner had learnt by rate several questions and their answers from the class notes given by his respective teachers and he had also crammed answers to many other questions from some of the books. Thereafter the fourth semester of the said examination of the Petitioner was held in the month of July, 1983. He duly appeared at that also and by that time no notice or communication of any kind was addressed to him levelling against him any charge of using unfair means. Thereafter, however the notice dated 6 -8 -1983 from the Respondent was served on the Petitioner alleging that according to the report of the Examiner in Paper No. 10 the Petitioner was an examinee appearing at a particular centre and all the five candidates, including the Petitioner, taking their examination at that centre were guilty of mass copying. A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner alongwith the examiner's report. He gave a reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations of alleged copying. He specifically stated in his reply that since all the five candidates were being taught by the same set of teachers who had given extensive class notes and dictated answers to many important questions, which had been carefully assimilated and learnt by the examinees, this might have reflected resemblance in their answers. The explanation added that the Petitioner was supplied only the report of the Examiner and not the answers written by other candidates. Ultimately by a notice dated 20 -12 -1983/7 -1 -1984 the result of both the semester's examinations (third and fourth), i.e. for the entire session of 1982 -83 were cancelled. The aforesaid order has been filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition and it is this order which is impugned.

(3.) IT is evident from the said excerpt that the sole basis of the action taken against the Petitioner was the report of the Examiner which was to the effect that the answers given by the five examinees to certain questions in Paper No. 10 were "word by word" identical, and this could be possible only if the answers were copied from the same book or notes or from each other. It is significant that the Examiner's report, which is the substratum of the final decision taken against the Petitioner, is itself equivocal. The report says that the similarity noticed in the answers could have derived either from consulting some book, or class notes etc. We find no difficulty in accepting the contention that similarity of answers can stem from drawing upon some ready made common answers supplied by class notes or teacher's notes. But this by itself is not very dependable, much less a conclusive factor for drawing the inference that the resemblance arose from using unfair means. On the one hand, we cannot endorse the approach sometimes adopted in such cases which puts them at par with the circumspection which is enjoined in the appraisal of evidence in a criminal trial. On the other hand, there is also the danger of equating guilty with mere suspicion. In one decision of this Court, to which one of us was a party, similarity or resemblance of answers has been recognised as a pertinent basis for determining whether unfair means have been used. We express our concurrence with that view but hasten to add that the matter requires a deeper probe because the feature of similarity is not an absolutely untrammelled factor. Its impact may vary from proof to mere suspicion, depending upon the degree to which it is perpetrated and the subject in the context of which it manifests itself In a pure arts subject, for instance, there is room for innovation , variety and ingenuity of expression. On the other hand, in a subject like Physics or Chemistry there is hardly any room for difference or novelty. In such subjects answers are in the natural course likely to tally. Usually in such cases the stock answer being with such phrases as "let us suppose" or "let us construct" etc. While dealing with such matters one should not be surprised at the similarity which is exhibited in the answers. Further more in the matter of resemblance also, it may be emphasised that similarity in the mistakes is more indicative of the use of unfair means than mere similarity in the correctness of answers. If the mistakes are varied in character and are repeated by a group of examinees, it may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they were the result of use of unfair means. On the other hand, if the mistakes are of "a fantastic nature and are repeated in identical fashion by a large group of examinees, the inference of copying would be well -founded. Not only this, in a subject like Science and Mathematics there is yet another criterion which experience dictates can be of substantial use in coming to the correct conclusion. If in the answers in such subjects the intervening steps are jumped over and only the final answer is neatly set out, it would certainly justify the inference that the examinee had restored to unfair means. On the other hand, If in such subjects as Science and Mathematics there are complete answers without omission of any step and no mistake is committed in coming to the final answer, the fact that the other examinees have also answered in exactly the same manner with similar precision and elaboration, cannot warrant the conclusion that the examinees concerned had used unfair means. Notwithstanding Bertland Russel's encomium regarding, the sublime beauty of certain equations in Mathematics, the fact remains that it is a subject which does not admit of variety of style, diversity of expression or embellishments of language.