V NAGESWAR RAO Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of suspension passed by the 1st respondent in the proceedingsNo.MR-287/168/96/Admn.III, dated 28-7-1996 is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner submits that he was appointed as Lecturer in Law College under Osmania University in the year 1964. Later on he was promoted as Reader in Law in 1971. He was further appointed as a Professor of Law in Osmania University on 28-11-1989 and the benefit of promotion under merit scheme was given with effect from 17-6-1987. It is the case of the petitioner thathe is ahighly acknowledged academician in Law faculty and that he has been teaching at the Post-Graduate and under-graduate levels. He has been guiding research scholars registered in Osmania University and other Universities. In fact he submits that he had varied experience both in academic matters and also in conducting various examinations including confidential work of paper setting, moderating etc.

(3.) While so A.P. State Council of Higher Education constituted under the provisions of A.P.Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act 1983, nominated the Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University as Chairman for conducting common entrance test for the academic year 1996-97. The University in turn proposed the name of the petitioner as convener for common entrance test. Accordingly the petitioner was appointed as convener for conducting the said common entrance test for both three- year and five-year degree courses in Law. The petitioner has taken all precautions for successful conduct of the examination. The common entrance test for five years course was held on 15-6-1996 while for three years course on 16-6-1996. About thirty five thousand students appeared for the test at 82 test centres spread over the entire State. After the examination was over the confidential scheme of evaluation of answer book-lets was set in motion. A team of academicians well-equipped with job knowledge was selected. In the instant case three readers from Geo-Physics Department of Osmania University and one Lecturer from Sanskrit college of the University are assigned the task of confidential work. Various procedures are prescribed for coding and decoding the answer scripts which according to the petitioner have been compl ied with without any deficiency. After the evaluation of the answer scripts they were forwarded to the computer centre. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to save considerable amount by engaging private entrepreneur for computerised evaluation, the work was entrusted to computer centre of the Osmania University which is headed by Professor and the said centre accepted to accomplish the job at the cost of Rs.1.5 lakhs. Even the said centre was chosen in consultation with the A.P.Councilof Higher Education and the said computer centre was engaged for similar kind of work in the past. After the answer slips were handed over to the computer centre and after the evaluation of the answer scripts was over the Vice-Chancellor of the University released the results to the press on 29-6-1996 at 11-30 a.m. It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of announcement of the results at 5.30 a.m. the petitioner conducted a random check up and no complaint of any malpractice was brought to the notice of the petitioner. But however on 3-7-1996 an accredited journalist made a telephone call informing that certain malpractices have taken place in the computer centre during the evaluation of the answer scripts on account of which certain students secured top ranks. After conducting another round of through random check the petitioner entertained a suspicion about the handwriting found in a few answer scripts and in some cases he found that handwriting is the same in more than one answer scripts. Therefore, he prepared a report on 5-7-1996 and submitted to the Chairman and Vice-Chancellor of the University. Thereafter malpractice Committee was constituted for the purpose of taking proper action. The matter was also reported to the police and necessary assistance was extended to the police with regard to the investigation. The C.B.C.I.D. prima facie found that mal-practices had occurred by tampering the answer-scripts at the computer centre through the help of employees of the centre. In the meanwhile the petitionerwas relieved of the assignment ofconvenerof LAWCET 1996on 16-7-1996 and in its place another person Professor Ahamadulla Khan, Professor of Law, Osmania University was appointed as Convener of LAWCET. Accordingly all the files and relevant material were handed over to the said Ahamadulla Khan. The petitioner submits that politically motivated individuals have made an issue out of malpractices to malign the reputation of the petitioner. Even though malpractices had taken place at the computer centre which is prima facie established by the investigation made by the police yet the pressures were brought on the University Authorities to place the petitioner under suspension. The Executive Council of the University in its meetingheld on 26-7-1996 decided to place the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. The petitioner was served with proceedings dated 28-7-1996 placing him under suspension pending enquiry. The said proceedings are assailed before this Court.