LAWS(ALL)-1998-3-146

RAJIV NAYAN SINGH Vs. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

Decided On March 31, 1998
RAJIV NAYAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 13.3.1997 cancelling the result of B.A. Part II examination of the year 1996 or petitioner and debarring him from appearing in subsequent examination of 1997 by University of Allahabad for using unfair means. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed this writ petition on three grounds, which can be better summarised as follows: Firstly, the Ordinance 1.3 or Ordinances of use of unfair means and causing disturbances in examination under Chapter XXVIII of Allahabad University Ordinances is mandatory yet it has not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned order is bad; Secondly, the charge levelled against the petitioner for use of unfair means are vague and, therefore, also the order is bad; and Thirdly, the petitioner has been held guilty and punished without recording satisfaction by the 'unfair means committee'. The argument in respect of first ground has substance but before taking up the first ground it is better to dispose of second and third contentions of Counsel for petitioner.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the charge is vague and not specific therefore the impugned order is bad. A notice dated 5.9.1996 was sent to petitioner wherein specific charge was levelled, which he was called upon to explain, for possession and recovery of unauthorised material. There is no force in the argument that charge is vague.

(3.) The other argument of learned Counsel for petitioner that committee has not recorded its satisfaction is also untenable. The petitioner has not made any averment in this respect in writ petition therefore neither reply to any such plea in counter-affidavit was necessary nor facts about such a plea could be replied therein. Learned Counsel relied on violation or Ordinance 1.6. The said ordinance could be attracted only when foundation had been laid by stating relevant facts by petitioner. In absence of necessary averments, this argument is also rejected.