NANIK DHARAMDAS VAZIRANI Vs. MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NANIK Dharamdas Vazirani, whom we will hereafter refer to as "the petitioner", was a student of the Intermediate College of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. The petitioner appeared as a candidate at the Intermediate Arts Examination of the university he'd in the months of March/april 1956. The seat number allotted to the petitioner at the examination was 156. The results of the successful candidates at that examination were declared in May 1956- The University announced that the result of the petitioner and of some other candidates 'was kept in reserve'. On 25-5-1956. the father of the petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar of the University praying that the petitioner be granted grace marts in any subject where he might have failed. He also stated that he was praying for "justice, and justice alone" at the Registrar's "generous hands". By his letter, dated 2-6-1956, the Registrar informed the father of the petitioner that the petitioner was 'reported to have used unfair means' at the examination' and that the decision of the University regarding his case will be announced 'in due course'. By letter, dated 6-8-1. 956, the father of the petitioner asked for a hearing before any action was taken against the petitioner. By letter, dated 13-6-1956, the Registrar informed him that the decision of the University will be announced 'in due course' as' already intimated. On 26-6-1956. the University published a 'notification' under the direction of the Syndicate, that the candidates whose names were set out were found "guilty of having practised unfair means at the University Examination mentioned against their names, held in March/april 1956" and their results were cancelled'. It was also directed that all those candidates excepting one Parsram were debarred from appearing at any University Examination before 31-13-1957. In the list of candidates the name of the petitioner was third. Intimation of this notification was given to the candidates concerned and to the office-bearers of the University and to all universities in India and certain other educational bodies. On 29-6-1956, the father of the petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar requesting him to send the findings and the grounds on which the decision of the University was arrived at and also the marks obtained by the petitioner in every subject. He protested against the decision as "unjust and unfair'' and contended that circulation of the notification meant 'reflection on the character" of the petitioner, who had been "condemned unheard though previously requested on 30-6-1956, he addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University stating that no definite charge was intimated to the petitioner and no explanation was asked for and that the decision of the Syndicate was arrived at ex parte and it was unjust. He requested the Vice-chancellor to "take fair attitude and prompt action", By his letter, dated 4-7-1956, the father of the petitioner was informed that the cases of all the candidates reported to have used unfair means at the examination were "carefully gone through considering all aspects" and the Syndicate of the University had passed orders in the matter "after due deliberation". The Registrar also informed the father of the petitioner that the question of supplying marks did not arise because under the same resolution the Syndicate 'had resolved to cancel the results' of all those candidates. By his letter, dated 12. 7-1956. the father of the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner had become the victim of suspicion only and any punishment inflicted upon him without calling for his explanation could not legacy stand. He, therefore, asked the Registrar to inform him the full details as requested in his earlier letters. On 17-7-1956, the petitioner's father addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor praying for justice and threatening that if justice was denied, he may have to take legal action. There was some further correspondence between the father of the petitioner and the University authorities. On 2-8-1956, one, Gidumal, Advocate, acting under instructions from the petitioner, addressed a letter to the Registrar calling upon him to move the Syndicate "to vacate its illegal order, dated 25-6-1956" and in default threatening legal action. In reply to that letter, the Registrar by his letter, dated 3-8-1956, informed the Advocate that in cases where the examiners made a report to them about the use of unfair means by any candidate, it was not considered necessary to ask for any explanation from the candidate concerned; and that the examiners appointed by the University were all responsible persons and their report was duly considered by the University. After some more correspondence this application was filed by the petitioner on 15-9-1956, for "necessary and appropriate writs celling for the record of the entire enquiry, the examiners' reports and all the evidence and material upon which the findings of the said Committee were based as also the proceedings in connection therewith taken before the Syndicate culminating in the order. . dated 25-6-1956," and declaring that the order was ultra vires and to set it aside and for a further order directing the University and its officers to forbear from carrying out the impugned order and to treat the petitioners in the same way as if the order was never made and to declare the result of the ex-emination on the basis that the enquiry was never held.

(2.) THE Registrar of the University by his affidavit submitted that the unfair means adopted bv the petitioner were not detected during the progress of the examination and, therefore, the supervisor or any other preson connected with the examination could not, at that stage inform the petitioner that he had used unfair means, that the unfair means adopted by the petitioner were reported to the University by the examiners concerned and after the report was received there was a thorough inquiry and it was only after an ad hoc committee appointed for the purpose and the Syndicate of the University were satisfied that the petitioner was guilty of unfair mean, that action against him was taken. He submitted that the action taken by the University was in consonance with the powers vested in it by virtue of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Act XVII of 1949 and the relevant rules and ordinances framed thereunder, and that the action taken by the officers of the University was taken in their administrative capacity for maintenance of discipline in the educational institutions, and it was not necessary to serve a charge-sheet or to give opportunity to the petitioner to meet the evidence against him or to give him an opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses or of being heard in his defence. The Registrar asserted that the action taken by the University was "justifiable In the interest of the maintenance of discipline and to prevent cases of misconduct and unfair means occurring at the examinations conducted by the University", and submitted that the action taken by the University was "perfectly in compliance with the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Act and the Rules and Ordinances issued thereunder", and 'in consonance with the practice prevailing in such matters in other Universities". He then stated that the examiners in the Economics paper as well as the Mathematics paper had reported that the petitioner and two other students, whose seats Nos. were 155 and 157, had used unfair means at the examination and these reports were "carefully considered by the ad hoc committee" and action was taken against the petitioner after the Syndicate had "carefully considered the whole matter and was convinced that the petitioner was guilty of copying or abetting copying in the examination and had therefore used, unfair means". The Registrar stated that a perusal of the answers given by the petitioner clearly showed that he had copied his answers from the answer books of other candidates or had abetted copying and that the answer books of the petitioner clearly showed that he had copied verbatim 'even the mistakes in the answer books of the other candidates from whose answer books the petitioner had copied'. The Registrar produced with his affidavit photo, state copies of the answers given by candidates Seats Nos. 155, 156 and 157 in the Economics and the Mathematics Papers.

(3.) IN suport of this application it was urged by Mr. Nagrani on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry held by the Syndicate into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner was a quasijudicial enquiry and in any event having regard to the nature of the enquiry the Syndicate was bound to give the the petitioner an opportunity of submitting his representation on the charge of misconduct before the petitioner could be found guilty. It was urged that the Syndicate being a quasi-judicial authority was bound to follow the rules of natural justice and that the petitioner could not be condemned unheard. Reliance in support of that plea was sought to be placed upon the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Dipa Pal v. University of Calcutta, AIR 1952 Cal 594 (A) and B. C. Das Gupta v. Bijovranjan Rakshit. AIR 1953 Cal 212 (B) and upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P. , Allahabad (S) AIR 1956 All 539 (C ).