BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY Vs. VIKAS JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. Vikas Jain (writ petitioner and respondent in appeal) seeking admission in B. Com Part-I in Banaras Hindu University in the academic session 1997-98 appeared in the Undergraduate Entrance Test. An intimation dated 19-7-1997 was sent to him from the University that he had qualified in the test. He went to deposit the admission fee which was not accepted and ultimately he was denied admission. He then filed writ petition No. 26317 of 1997 which was allowed by a learned single Judge by the judgment and order dated 28-11-1997 and the appellants herein (respondents in writ petition) were directed to admit him in B. Com. Part-I in the academic session 1997-98. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the University has preferred this Special Appeal.

(2.) THE case set up by Vikas Jain in writ petition was that he had appeared in the Entrance Test seeking admission in B. Com. Part-I in the academic session 1996-97 but the invigilator prevented him from answering the whole paper. He then applied for admission in the academic session 1997-98 for which he was issued admit card by the University to appear in the Entrance Test which was held on 10-6-1997. He qualified in the test and intimation to that effect was sent by the University asking him to attend the office on Ist and 2nd August, 1997 for depositing the fee and to complete other formalities. He went several times to the University office but ultimately he was orally informed that he would not be granted admission in the University. THE University filed a Counter Affidavit and the plea taken therein was that while appearing in the Entrance Test held for the academic session 1996-97 the writ petitioner was found talking to another student and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in any future examination of the University. This action had also been approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 26-6-1996.

(3.) THE law regarding use of unfair means in the examinations by the students and the action to be taken therein has been settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Triambak Pati Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. AIR 1973 All 1 and it has been held that the Examination Committee while dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the examination hall acts quasi-judicially and the principle of natural justice apply to the proceedings before it. THE essential principles of natural justice that are to be observed by an authority dealing with the case in quasi- judicial manner are as follows: (1) THE person whose rights are to be affected must be given notice of the case or the charges which he has to meet. (2) He must be given an opportunity to make a representative and to explain the allegations made against him and to have his say in the matter; and (3) THE authority conducting the proceedings must not be biased and should act in good faith. According to the appellants the writ petitioner was found talking to another student bearing Roll No. 42092 on 10-6-1996 while he was appearing in the Entrance Test for the academic session 1996-97 and a notice was given to him forthwith by the Invigilator. THE decision to debar the writ petitioner was thereafter taken on its basis. A copy of notice which is alleged to have been given to the writ petitioner has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Stay Application. It is in a printed proforma and on the top of it following is mentioned in bold letters: STATEMENT OF UNFAIR PRACTICE REPORTED FROM VARIOUS ENTRANCE EXAMINATION CENTRES. No other notice was given to the writ petitioner nor any kind of opportunity at any subsequent point of time was given to him to explain the allegations allegedly levelled against him. THE document does not show that it is a notice to a student asking him to explain any allegation against him. It is merely a report by the Invigilator or the Co-ordinator of the examinations wherein signature of the candidate is also obtained. From the case set up by the University and the materials placed on record, we are not satisfied that any notice regarding allegation of using unfair means had been given to the writ petitioner or he was given an opportunity to give an explanation. THE appellants have not been able to establish that the principles of natural justice had been observed when they took the decision to debar the writ petitioner from any future examination of the University on the ground that he was found talking to another student during the course of Entrance Test held on 10-6-1996 for the academic session 1996- 97.