JAYESH BHUPATRI PARIKH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ to quash Ex. F, being an order passed by the respondent, treating petitioner's appearnace at the examination of April, 1985 as null and void and further debarring him from appearing for any University examination till the end of the first half of the year 1986.

(2.) Respondent, the University of Bombay, conducts examinations for various faculties, instructions wherein is imparted by different colleges affiliated to the University, one such college being the K.J. Somaiya Engineering College of Vidyavihar, Bombay. Petitioner appeared for the second semester examination, which began on April 12, 1985 and was over in April 29, 1985. On April 17, 1985, he together with one Parikh Milan, appeared for the Applied Chemistry paper. Petitioner's seat number was 1192, whereas Milan who sat directly behind him, was at seat No. 1193. On 12-6-1985, petitioner was served with Ex. B which is a show cause notice calling upon him to appear before the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee on 14-6-1985, the charge agianst him being specified as -

(3.) Petitioner questions all the material events leading up to and culminating with the order incorporated in Ex. F. It is argued that Ex. B. was not specific, that in any case it was served just a day or two prior to the date fixed for holding of the enquiry, that adequate time had not been given to the petitioner to prepared for his defence, that the conduct of the members constituting the Enquiry committee was bereft of and contrary to principles of fairness, that far from the enquiry being fair, two of the members of the Enquiry committee had practised inquisitorial tactics and that he had been abruptly asked to leave the room where the enquiry was being conducted. His request to get papers connected with the enquiry before the passing of the final order had not been complied with. The order at Ex. F was bereft of particulars and showed non-application of mind Ex. F deserved to be quashed and that is the relief claimed by the petitioner. The respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply through one V.D. Shinde who is the Deputy Registrar of the University's Examination Section. He says tht the affidavit is based on information provided to him by the "Examination Section". In para 4, it is averredthat a full lopportunity was provided to the petitioner by the Enquiry committee. The said Committee made a report to the Vice-Chancellor. The finding of the Committee that petitioner and Milan were guilty was borne out by the material examined. I dentical answers had been given by both the candidates to various questions appearing in the question paper 10 of Shinde's affidavit, in which it is alleged that the petitioner was allowed to scrutinise the answer paper submitted by him as also that of Milan and that petitioner had no explanation regarding the "startling similarity" in the answers.