ANIL KUMAR RAI Vs. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The petitioner filed this writ petition with a prayer that B. A. Part-III 1993-1994 result in which petitioner had appeared b declar ed expeditiously and also for quashing of the notice dated 21-7-1994 issued to by petitioner by the University. The Court was pleased to direct that counter affidavit be filed and the incriminating article, said to have been re covered from the possession of the petitioner, be also produced. Counter affidavit has been filed. In the meantime the result of the petitioner was cancelled by an order dated 9-11-1994. Hence an application for amendment in the writ petition seeking addition of prayer for quashing the order dated 9-11-1994 has also been moved. This application for amendment stands allowed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never used unfair means in replying the questions in Hindi 3rd paper B. A. Part-ill. THE petitioner stated that the alleged incriminating article was not recovered from possession of the petitioner. Rather it was found lying on the floor at a distance and the petitioner has been wrongly charged with use of unfair means in the examination. THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that neither he was arrested was the person that using unfair means in the examination hall. THE petitioner also submitted that no notice was given as required in the Ordinance No. 1. 3 and 1. 5 mentioned in para graph No. 8 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was necessary for the respondents to have served on the petitioner at notice by registered post within seven days of the incident. Opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner before considering the report, if any, about the candidates having been found in possession of unauthorised materials, besides other things mentioned therein. THE petitioner has not actually reproduced the exact language of Ordinance 1. 3 and 1. 5 and in paragraph No. 8 he has substituted his own language for said Ordinance. THE respondents in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit have specifically mentioned that on the date of examination i. e. 5-7-1994 at 7. 10 a. m. the flying squad of the University caught the petitioner using unfair means in the examination hall and have put following remark on his answer book 'ufm caught by F. S. ' THEreafter 'a' answer sheet was taken from him and 'b' answer sheet was supplied to him. A notice of the same was served on the petitioner in the examination hall itself. Petitioner gave his reply to the use of unfair means in the examination hall itself. A photo copy of unfair means form alongwith reply of the petitioner has been filed as annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Registrar/examination Superintendent of the University on 21-7-1994 sent a show cause notice to the petitioner by registered post. THEreafter the answer sheet alongwith unfair means materials was sent to the examiner for her report. Examiner gave her report on use of unfair means, THE report of the examiner is also annexed as annexure CA-2 showing that the petitioner had used unfair means. THE report of the examiner, copy of the show cause notice, answer sheet and the material found in use of unfair means were placed before the Committee appointed under Ordinance 1. 4 of the Ordinance and the Committee considered carefully all the documents and found that the petitioner was found using unfair means on the said date and as such his result was cancelled. Copy of the order of the Committee has also been annexed as annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit. THE allegations made by petitioner stand rebutted in the counter affidavit. THE learned counsel for the respondent-University has produced chits recovered from the possession of the petitioner. THE chits are of very small size measuring about 2. 5 inches and 4 in number in which on both side soma netter h written which appears to have been used in the examination hall. An expert Com mittee found that chits found were utilised in replying the questions. It is also apparent that these chits if thrown cannot be found lying at one place and will spread over because of their size being small. THE examination authorities found that it were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. THEse factors and conclusion of the respondents that the petitioner had used unfair means in the examination protect the decision of the Expert Committee. In such matters Expert Committee is the competent authority to come to such decision whether the student had used unfair means or not. This is not for the High Court to substitute its own decision in such technical matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two decisions reported in 1991 (1) UPLBE 624, Ram Janam v. Kulsachive Pariksha Adhikshak Allahabad University, Allahabad and 1952 (1) UPLBEC 722 ; Amit Kumar Singh v. Registrar, University of Allahabad, Allahabad. THE respondents placed re liance on a decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 2591, Guru Nanak Dev Universi ty v. Harjinder Singh,. THE authority of Supreme Court is the law of the land and the law laid down the Single Judge decision but Court loose its efficacy. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court (supra ). This writ petition deserves to be dismissed.