SOLANKI VIPUL DEVJIBHAI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE University of Mumbai, detected the use of unfair means during the course of the examination in the subject of Machine Design-I for the Seventh Semester of the Degree Course of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering. The University convened an Unfair Means Enquiry Committee to investigate into the allegations against the students involved. They are the petitioners before the Court in the five writ petitions. The Unfair Means Enquiry Committee came to the conclusion after an enquiry in which the students participated that the use of unfair means had been established. Final orders were passed by the University. The students concerned have been informed that their performance in the examination has treated as null and void. Besides this four students who are the petitioners before the Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1249, 1250, 1252 and 1253 of 2001 stand debarred from appearing at any examination of the University or College till the end of the first half of the year 2001. In the case of the fifth student, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1241 of 2001, the debarment is until the end of the second half of the year 2001.

(2.) THE question paper in issue was in the subject of Machine Design-I of the revised course of the Bachelor of Engineering examination. The instructions given to the students allowed them the use of a Data Book compiled by P. S. G. /mahadevan. The students were also instructed that they were permitted to assume any additional data wherever required, giving reasons for doing so. At the outset, it would merit being recorded that the question paper in issue related to the final year of the B. E. Examination. Students of the final year are expected to have achieved a sufficient degree of proficiency in the branch of Engineering in which they would shortly be completing their studies for the degree. Students are thus permitted to utilize the data book which gives them the relevant data and in certain cases, the formulae. But, what is of importance is that students have a wide choice available, within the parameters of the data which is furnished in the data book to make an appropriate selection of data on the basis of which the relevant Machine Design can be prepared. The questions which are posed to the students are, therefore, unlike conventional questions which are posed in the course of an examination in the sense that these questions are not essay type questions or, questions which require recollection by the students from their memory. The essential data is before the student and the data which is available gives to each student a wide degree of flexibility and choice to make an appropriate selection in the preparation of a Machine Design. This aspect of the matter is of significance is the facts and circumstances of the present case because it has been held in decided cases that a mere similarity of answers may not be sufficient to establish a case of copying at an examination. This principle is apposite in examinations where the aptitude of a student to reproduce material studied from a prescribed text book, recollecting what he has studied from his memory is what is the subject matter of the test or examination. Rote learning or recollection from memory should not form the basis of a true examination. But, in that respect our examination system as it stands, is more often than not a test of the memory of a student more than his application of mind to the principles which he has learnt. Be that as it may, in the examination which was held in the present case, students were permitted to have access to the data book and to write down their answers by making a suitable application of the data which they have selected during the course of examination.

(3.) THE examiner noticed in the present case that the answers which were written by five students, who are the petitioners before this Court in this batch of petitions, were identical for several questions. On a closer analysis, it was found that in the case of certain specific questions, the answers were completely identical and in fact several pages of the answer books of the students were absolutely the same, to use a common expression, word for word. Accordingly, a show-cause noticed dated 15th March, 2001 came to be issued to each one of the said students calling upon them to attend the enquiry which had been convened by the University. In the show cause notice which was issued to the students, the specific allegation which had been made against each one of them was adverted to. The allegation was that the student concerned had mutually copied certain specific answers from a specified candidate at the examination. Thus, for instance in Writ Petition No. 1249 of 2001, the first in this batch of petitions, the following allegation was contained in the show-cause notice:-