BIJAN BEHARI GOSWAMI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The University of Calcutta annually holds an examination for the degree of Master of Articles The petitioner completed the course of studies in Sanskrit, deposited the prescribed fees for the Master of Arts examination and there was an Admit Card issued in his favour by the respondent University, enabling him to sit for the examination in the Year 1963.

(2.) One of the rules for the conduct of the examination is :

(3.) The examination began on November 27, 1963. The petitioner appeared at the examination on three days, namely, on November 27, November 29 and December 2, 1963, without any untoward incident. On the fourth day of the examination on December 4, 1963, however, the petitioner became involved in an incident The petitioner says that he felt the necessity of going to the lavatory. while the examination was going on. While inside the lavatory, the petitioner says, his wallet dropped from the pocket of the "Punjabi" he had put on. An invigilator, who had accompanied the petitioner, noticed this and questioned him whether he had any written notes in his possession. Then only, [he petitioner says, he rememberd that he had taken down, on the previous evening, certain notes from a book known as "Sahitva Darpan", while using the book at the Sanskrit College Library, and that the said notes were lying in the inside pocket of his "Punjabi". The petitioner further says that he had completely forgotten about the existence of the said notes on his person and had no occasion to refer to them. He handed over the notes to the invigilator. At the end of the examination for the day, the petitioner says, he himself spoke to the Officer-in-Charge of the Examination Hall about the incident and was told by him that possession of such notes, within the Examination Hall, was irregular under the rules of examination. The petitioner, however, says that he was not aware of the existence of the said rules. The petitioner further says that he was not expelled, in terms of the rule hereinbefore quoted but was allowed to complete his examination. The case pleaded by the petitioner is not materially admitted in the aifidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, the University, the Vice-Chancellor, the Syndicate and the Controller of Examination. I shall refer to the contents of the said affidavit later on.