MOHIT NAMAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohit Naman was a regular student of B.Sc. Part II. He appeared in Zoology IIIrd paper on Saturday 13th July. 1996 with Roll No. 53187 from C. M. P. Degree College. Allahabad in the aforesaid examination conducted by Allahabad University. There was absolutely no complaint or allegation against him either by the invigilators of the examination hall or that of the Centre Superintendent that he had indulged in adopting unfair means. The answer book of his Zoology IIIrd paper, it appears, was sent for examination and evaluation to Dr. R.S. Pandey. Department of Zoology, University of Allahabad. Sri Pandey informed the Controller of Examination. University of Allahabad by addressing letter dated 3.8.1996, which runs as follows : 'This is to bring to your kind notice that while evaluating the answer book bearing Roll No. 53187 of B.Sc. Part II Zoology IIIrd paper, I observed that the signature of the invigilator on the answer book does not tally with that of the other answer books and appears to be forged and inducted from outside the examination hall. Also the answers written in the answer book appears to be copied from some book. The matter presented by the examinee in the answer book is not possible to be produced within 3 hrs. and it appears that the examinee has attempted the questions taking his own time. "In view of above observation, I request you to look into the matter and do the needful." On the basis of the above report, a notice dated 30.10.1996 bearing No. 3910 was issued by the Controller of Examination to the petitioner Mohit Naman who was required to furnish his explanation by 8.11.1996. According to the respondents, Mohit Naman did not furnish his explanation, and therefore, the Committee appointed under clause 1.4 of the Ordinance on the use of Unfair Means and of Causing Disturbances in Examinations of the University of Allahabad, after satisfying itself of the facts of the matter, came to the conclusion that the candidate (the petitioner) is guilty of offence stated in clause 1.6A of the Ordinance and, therefore, the punishment of cancellation of the results of the petitioner of B.Sc. Part II examination of 1996 was imposed on 1.12.1996.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the result of B.Sc. Part II was published in the newspaper on 7.10.1996 and his roll number 53187 was shown under the head 'Results Not Ready'. The petitioner met the authorities but was told that the matter is being looked into and ultimately, a notice dated 30.10.1996 was served upon him, which was actually received by him on 13.11.1996 while the deadline for submitting the explanation, i.e., upto 8.11.1996 had expired. The petitioner after having received the notice on 13.11.1996 moved an application before the Examination Committee as well as Superintendent Dr. K.N. Pandey, seeking one week's time to submit the explanation as he could not furnish explanation within time, i.e., by 8.11.1996 as the notice was received by him on 13.11.1996 and also on account of the fact that the Deepawali vacations had intervened. A copy of the application dated 13.11.1996 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The explanation submitted by the petitioner on 18.11.1996 is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which, it appears, was put up before the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor made an anxious enquiry by jotting down a note on the explanation, Annexure-5 to the writ petition itself, as to whether the petitioner was apprehended or not in the examination hall while adopting unfair means. He also directed the Controller of Examination to speak in the matter. It appears that no heed was paid to the order dated 19.11.1996 passed by the Vice- Chancellor on Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

(3.) The record of inquiry, which contains only three papers, a report by Dr. R.S. Pandey, dated 3.8.1996 ; a copy of the notice issued to the petitioner dated 3.10.1996 and the decision dated 1.12.1996 of the Committee appointed under the Ordinance, on the printed form, has been brought, in original, before this Court for perusal. The relevant answer book of the petitioner in Zoology IIIrd paper, comprised of the A-Book besides three B-Books, has also been brought before this Court along with answer book of another candidate bearing roll No. 53188 with a view to Indicate that the signatures of the invigilator on the two sets of the answer books do not tally.