CHOUDHURI MOHAMMAD YASIN Vs. REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against cancellation of the petitioner's examination in History and Political Science held at the B. A. Part I Examination, 1973.

(2.) THE petitioner appeared at the b. A. Part I Examination in Arts from kandi Raj College in the year 19/3 as an external candidate being Rod No. Kandi External I (Ars) B. A. Part I 1973 from the Calcutta University. The controller of Examination of Calcutta university by its memo. No. 73/34832 sent to the petitioner the mark-sheet obtained by him. It appears from the said mark-sheet that the examinations of Political Science and History of the petitioner stood cancelled and it further transpired that the petitioner secured pass marks in English and bengali. From the said mark-sheet it appears that the examinations held on 7. 9. 73 and 12. 9. 73 for Political Science and History were cancelled in respect of all examinees of that centre. The reasons of such cancellation were not disclosed nor any general notification was issued by the University declaring cancellation of the examination of all examinees in respect of those two subjects. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation on 21. 6. 74 to the Vice-Chancellor wherein the petitioner prayed for review of the results by examining those two subjects. No reply was given to the said representation. Subsequent reminders were sent without any result. On 16. 12. 74 the petitioner personally met the Vice-Chancellor. Thereupon the Vice-Chancellor referred the matter to the Controller of Examinations and verbally assured the petitioner that justice would be done. It is alleged by the petitioner in the petition that no enquiry was held by any competent authority or any committee or sub-committee in respect of: the examinations held on 7th and 12th September, 1973. No charge sheet was framed against the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to show cause against the cancellation of those two examinations. The petitioner was never directed to appear before any committee or any competent authority to furnish explanation. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner never adopted unfair means nor there was any allegation of unfairness against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by such cancellation of his examination with respect to two subjects moved this Court under article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule.

(3.) AN affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and affirmed by Sankari Prosad banerjee, Registrar of the University of Calcutta, wherein it is stated as there was a case of mass copying in the kandiraj College Examination Centre, the results of about 461 examinees had been cancelled. It transpired that there was mass copying in the centre both on 7th and 12th September, 1973, when the examinations of B. A. Part I examination in Political Science and history papers were going on. At the examination held at the said centre unfair means were adopted on a very large scale by a large number of students and the examination on both occasions as indicated above had been conducted in an atmosphere which was not at all congenial to the enforcement of the discipline which had to be observed in conducting examination. Accordingly, the results of all examinees of the said centre were cancelled. The petitioner might have made aj representation to the Vice-Chancellor but there is no obligation on the part of the vice-Chancellor to reply to the said representation. As the examinees in a body resorted to breach of discipline, there was no necessity or obligation to charge individual examinees with individual charge sheets and there cannot be any question of giving opportunities to individual examinees to be heard prior to cancellation of their results. Accordingly there was no occasion for calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Board of Discipline or its sub-committee for explaining his conduct is alleged.