RAJESH MISRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Roy, J. The petitioner, a stu dent of Ishwar Saran Degree College affiliated to the Allahabad University, has come up with a prayer to call for the records of the examination concerning 1997 Examination of B. A. Part II in which he had appeared but his result has been cancelled and quash the communication made by the Deputy Registrar (Examina tion) through registered letter dated 2-3-98 informing him that in accordance with the provisions contained in 'ordinan CES ON THE USE OF UNFAIR-MEANS AND CAUSING DISTUR BANCES IN EXAMINATION' of the University of Allahabad, his result of B. A. II Examination of 1997 has been cancelled by awarding punishment for attempt/using unfair means at the said examination.

(2.) THE parties have exchanged af fidavits and the University has also produced the relevant records.

(3.) SRI A. B. L. Gaur, the learned Coun sel appearing on behalf of the Respon dents, on the other hand, contended as follows: (i) The fact that the incriminating docu ment, which was undisputedly relevant for the purposes of examination in question, was recovered from the desk/chair of the petitioner during examination by the flying squad, as having been admitted by the petitioner in his pen, on this ground alone the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court and, accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (ii) The punishment was awarded on ac count of keeping the incriminating document in his possession which he admitted and not on the ground of causing disturbances in the examina tion in question. Perhaps there is some miscon ception in the mind of SRI Mishra in making out such a point in view of the long title of the Ordinance namely "ordinances ON THE USE OF UNFAIR MEANS AND CAUSING DISTURBANCES IN EXAMINATION" of the University of Allahabad. (iii) Opportunity was granted to the petitioner but he failed to prove his defence. (iv) True it is that the petitioner's examina tion was cancelled for the year 1997 but no one had prevented him in filling up his forms for this year's examination and the allegations made in Paragraph 3 of his rejoinder to the counter are incorrect and in any view of the matter too vague to be accepted besides that such a statement has been made only today and not earlier. Since the petitioner was a student of Degree College the forms were sent by the University to his College and it was required to be obtained from the Principal and not from the University and it is not the case of the petitioner that he ever con tacted his Principal who has also not been impede has a Party.