RIKHABCHAND JAIN Vs. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner questions the legality of an order of the Jiwaji University, Gwalior, cancelling his result of the Second Year Engineering Examination of the University for the year 1965 and debarring him from appearing at the Examination in the year 1966. The applicant seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing this determination of the University, and also prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to declare his result for the 1965 examination.

(2.) THE applicant appeared as a student of the Madhav Engineering College, Gwalior, at the Second Year Engineering Examination of the University held in May 1965. On 6th May 1965, while he was answering Chemistry Paper, the invigilator found j the applicant putting his hand too often in a pocket of the garment which he was wearing. THE invigilator, therefore, became suspicious and took a search of the petitioner and found in his pocket four slips of paper. THE answer-book, which was then with the applicant, was taken away from him and a new answer-book was given to him for answering the questions within the fifty minutes that were left after the search. THE matter of the recovery of four slips was reported by the Superintendent of Examinations to the Universi- Mong with his report, the Superintendent also forwarded the statemcrinkt he had recorded of the petitioner as regards the existence of slips of paper in his pocket. In that statement, the petitioner admitted that the four slips were recovered from his possession; that he had brought them in the Examination Hall by mistake; but that he did not make any use of them for answering questions in the Chemistry paper. In the statement he also prayed that he should be excused for the lapse. THE Results Committee constituted by the University under Ordinance No. 32 of the Vikram University Ordinances, adopted by the Jiwaji University, then considered whether the petitioner had used or attempted to use unfair means at the examination, and on the basis of the reports of the invigilator, the Superintendent of Examinations and the examiner made a recommendation to the Executive Council that the petitioner's examination for 1965 should be cancelled and that he should be debarred from appearing at the 1966 examination. Two of the three members of the Results Committee expressed the view that "as the Examiner has not categorically stated that the candidate made use of the four chits found in his possession, only the examination of 1965 may be cancelled". THE third member said that "since the examiner has observed that 'It seems that slips were only supporting in the event of his (candidate's) forgetting anything', no punishment is called for". THE Examiner in the Chemistry Paper had reported-

(3.) THE petitioner cannot also complain that the respondents took punitive action against him without giving him an -opportunity of hearing. It is no doubt true that the Executive Council and the Results Committee must foilow the rules of natural justice while dealing with the matter of use or attempt to use unfair means at an examination by any candidate, and must give him a reasonable opportunity of bearing. But the Jiwaji University Act or the Ordinances governing the University nowhere prescribe any particular procedure to be followed by the University authorities in taking action under clause 10 of Ordinance No. 16. THE University is, therefore, competent to devise- its own procedure fulfilling the requirements of natural justice, as has been pointed out by this Court in Abdul Haque v. THE Board of Secondary Education, Bhopai 1966 MPLJ 439 (Misc. Petition No. 395 of 1965 decided on the 6th January 1966.) and by the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Examination v. Ghanshyam AIR 1982 S. C. 1110. and Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad 1963 AILJ 676=(1963) II SCJ 651. R.F.-61. Now, here, there was no question of holding any enquiry whether the four chits were recovered from the petitioner's possession while be was answering the Chemistry question paper. THEy were actually recovered by the invigilator, and in his statement before the Superintendent of Examinations the petitioner admitted that those chits were with him and that he had brought them in the Examination Hall through mistake. THEre was of course no direct evidence to show whether the petitioner did make use of those chits or attempted to use them. But as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad, 1963 All L J 676=(1963) II S. C. J. 651. direct evidence in such matters is not necessary and should not be expected. It was observed in that case that -