RASHMI BALA SAXENA Vs. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fourteen petitioners are joined by an equal number of interveners to make common grievance against cancellation of their LL.B. Part I Examination by the University. Because they prayed interim relief to allow them to appear in the Supplementary Examination in the paper "Constitutional Law" in the examination commencing on 07-09-1988, we heard this matter expeditiously after the petition was admitted on 23-08-1988.

(2.) At the conclusion of hearing on 08-09-1988, we arrived tentatively at the conclusion that the interim relief prayed could not be granted and as such, we reserved our order for disposing of the matter finally on merit as counsel addressed us extensively on the rival contentions on 7th as also on 8th September, 1988. Still, while reserving our final orders, we found some merit in the grievance made at the conclusion of the hearing that the candidates who were likely to be affected by the impugned order need not suffer the anguish of further derailment in their academic career. That grievance, we considered reasonable and we made appropriate direction in that regard immediately so that those who were serious in prosecuting their studies and take examination at next chance are not deprived of that opportunity.

(3.) The several petitioners and interveners were candidates for LL.B. Part I Examination of Jiwaji University which commenced on 8th April, 1988. They were granted Admission Cards and they took examination at Government Post-Graduate College, Guna. although in the petition as also in the application for intervention, the case that is made out is not admitted by the University in the perspective presented, the fact which has appeared duly established and duly admitted on both sides is that all did not go well on the first day of the Examination. Who were the gangsters may be disputed, but the fact which is established beyond doubt is that violence erupted suddenly in the Examination Hall leading to a bizarre situation. It is University's case which is duly established by materials on record that we propose to accept as we do not have any materials before us to accept the case set up by the candidates that they were in no way responsible for all that happened on that date of examination. There is no material before us to accept the case pleaded by the candidates that some outsiders entered in the Examination Hall and snatched the answer-books from them to tear those off. Indeed, except relying on an ambiguous statement appearing in Annexure-R/7, the candidates who have come before us have even failed to establish that they had complained against the action of those outsiders "hooligans and miscreants" and had sought protection. Indeed, it is not established that they requested the invigilators or the Superintendent of the Examination Centre to supply them fresh answer-books.