LAWS(ALL)-1986-12-36

SHARAD KUMAR Vs. KANPUR UNIVERSITY

Decided On December 16, 1986
SHARAD KUMAR Appellant
V/S
KANPUR UNIVERSITY, KANPUR THROUGH VICE CHANCELLOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHARAD Kumar, a student of M.Sc. Previous (Chemistry), has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28-3-85 (Annexure-5 to the petition), cancelling the result of the petitioner of 1984 M.Sc. Previous (Chemistry) Examination on the ground of use of unfair means. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order and for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in M.Sc. Final Examination which was scheduled to be held from 1st July, 1985.

(2.) THE facts of the case are few and simple and they are these. THE petitioner appeared in M.Sc. Previous (Chemistry) Examination with Roll No. 550 from the Kanpur University. He solved the Chemistry I Paper (Inorganic Chemistry) and did not use any unfair means in the examination nor there was any report from the Centre Superintendent or from the Flying Squad to that effect. But his result was withheld. THE father of the petitioner sent a letter on 13-12-84 to the Vice-Chancellor and again on 25-3-85 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor through the Principal of V. S. D. College, Kanpur to the effect that he has been unofficially informed that his result of M.Sc. Previous (Chemistry) Examination of 1984 has been withheld, when he never used unfair means in the said examination. THE petitioner made several efforts to know the reason as to why his result has not been declared. But he received no response. He was not given any opportunity of being heard and if some decision was to be taken against him the petitioner must have been heard. On the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-3 to the petition), the Principal of the College submitted a report on 27-3-85 (vide page 8 of the paper book), that according to the record of the Principal the petitioner was not caught using unfair means. But ultimately by the impugned order dated 28-3-85 the result of the petitioner of M.Sc. (Previous) Examination of 1984 was cancelled.

(3.) SRI Radhey Shyam, the learned counsel appearing for the University, was candid enough to accept that it was a fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard, nor even the reports of the Examiner as contained in para 3 of the counter affidavit as indicated above, were given to the petitioner nor he was given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. But with all emphasis and tenasity he urged that the result has been correctly cancelled and in these circumstances no opportunity of hearing was required to be given when the report of the Examiner was received later on. The impugned order requires no interference as the same was based on conclusions of the Examination Committee and it was outside the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with those conclusions. He relied heavily on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary, Board of H. S. & Intermediate Education, U. P. Alld., 1979 AWC 380.