RAJNEESH SHUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was a student of LL. B. First Year. In the Environmental Law Paper of the First Semester Examination of LL. B. First Year, 2006 held on 23-1-2006, on inspection, the flying squad found that the petitioner was using unfair means and thus on 24-1-2006 the Examination Controller, Allahabad University, Respondent No. 2, issued a notice to the petitioner requiring him to reply to the following charge: "the college flying squad recovered from the possession of the examinee the admit card on the back page of which the examinee has written with pencil u. f. m. [unfair means) matter. "

(2.) THE petitioner thereafter submitted his reply on 1-3-2006, denying the charge, and categorically stating that he did not make use of any unfair means in the examination. However, thereafter on 12-4- 2006 the Deputy Registrar (Examination), Respondent No. 3, held the petitioner to be guilty of using unfair means and cancelled his result of LL. B. 1st Year First Semester Examination, 2006. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SRI Gaur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, has submitted that Courts should not interfere with the decisions of the examining bodies with regard to use of unfair means. In this regard he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Vineeta Mahajan, (1994) 1 S. C. C. 6, wherein it has been held that "the sine qua non, for the misconduct under the Rule, is the recovery of the incriminating material from the possession of the candidate. Once the candidate is found to be in possession of papers relevant to the examination, the requirement of the Rule is satisfied and there is no escape from the conclusion that the candidate has used unfair means at the examination. The Rule does not make any distinction between bona fide or mala fide possession of the incriminating material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The very fact that she took the papers relevant to the examination in the paper concerned and was found to be in possession of the same by the invigilator in the examination hall is sufficient to prove the charge of using unfair means by her in the examination under the Rule. "