ARJIT KUMAR PATRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a student of V. S. S. Medical College, Burla. He appeared at the second Final M.B.B.S. Examination held in October, 2001 conducted by the Sambalpur University at the V. S. S. Medical College, Burla Centre, Burla. A notice dated 28-11-2001 was issued by the Assistant Controller of Examination, Sambalpur University to the petitioner stating therein that it had been reported that the petitioner had adopted unfair means in the examination in Obstetrics and Gynaecology held on 13-11-2001. The specific charge in the said notice dated 28-11-2001 was that while the examination in the paper was in progress, the petitioner was found in possession of incriminating material. By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to explain in writing as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for violating the rules of examination. In his reply dated 18-2-2001 to the Controller of Examination, Sambalpur University, the petitioner stated that he was not in possession of any material other than his Admit Card but unfortunately a piece of paper was found behind him which was out of his notice and knowledge. Thereafter, by notification dated 16-2-2002 of the Sambalpur University, the results of the examination of the petitioner and two other candidates in the final M.B.B.S. Examination, 2001 were cancelled as a penalty under Statute 214 (5)(ii) of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990. Aggrieved by the said cancellation of his result, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the notification dated 16-2-2002 and to direct the opp. parties to declare his result of the said examination.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opp. parties 1 to 3 stating therein that under instruction No.4 in the Admit Cards issued to all candidates before commencement of the examination, the candidates had been instructed not to have in their possession while in the hall, any book or paper, printed or manuscript even if they were unconnected with the subject of the examination, except their Admit Cards and question paper, answer books, graph sheets etc. as are provided by the University for the examination being held at the time. In the said counter affidavit, it is further stated that in hall No.2 in which the petitioner was taking the examination in Obstetrics and Gynaecology on 13-11-2001, there were eleven candidates and after the commencement of the examination, the observers appointed by the University arrived at the centre and during the surprise checking, the observers detected that the petitioner with Roll No. 57 and two other candidates with Roll Nos. 41 and 52 sitting in the said hall No.2 were in possession of incriminating materials. The observers prepared the report at the spot and the report was signed by the observers, invigilators and the Centre Superintendent and when the Centre Superintendent directed the petitioner to give his signature on the incriminating material, the petitioner bluntly refused. Thereafter, a malpractice report was prepared by the invigilators which was duly countersigned by the Centre Superintendent. The Centre Superintendent sent the incriminating material and the answer scripts of the petitioner to the Controller of Examination of the University. The Controller of Examination placed the matter before the Board of Conducting Examiners and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to submit his written explanation. The petitioner submitted his written explanation dated 18-12-2001 denying that he was in possession of any incriminating material during the examination held on 13-1-2001. The matter was placed before the examination Disciplinary Committee before whom the petitioner appeared in person and the said committee after taking into consideration of the report of the observers and the malpractice report of then Centre Superintendent and after hearing the petitioner came to a conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of incriminating material in the examination held on 13-11-2001 and recommended for cancellation of the result of the petitioner in the said examination as per sub-statute (5)(ii) of Statute 214. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Syndicate and the proceedings of the Examination Disciplinary Committee were approved by the Syndicate by Resolution dated 8-2-2002 and the impugned notification dated 16-2-2002 was published cancelling the results of the petitioner and two other candidates who were found to be in possession of incriminating materials during the examination in the said hall No.2 on 13-11-2001.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that no incriminating material was found from the possession of the petitioner in the examination hall on 13-11-2001 but a Chit_ was lying behind the seat of the petitioner which was not to the knowledge and notice of the petitioner and during surprise inspection the Flying Squad found out the said chit and gave a false report that the petitioner was in possession of incriminating material. He further submitted that at any rate, the contents of the chit do not at all relate to Obstetrics and Gynaecology" in which the petitioner was taking the examination on 13-11-2001. Mr. Kanungo submitted that, in fact, the chit was sent to an Expert by the University authorities and the Expert after verifying the chit has opined that the chit was not used/utilised in the examination by the petitioner. He vehemently argued that since the chit could not be utilised for the examination in Obstetrics and Gynaecology on 13-11-2001, a case of adoption of unfair means was not established against the petitioner. Mr. Kanungo cited an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kalpataru Jena v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and others, O.J.C. No. 8623 of 2001 decided on 4-3-2002 in which the Court found that one sheet of plain paper was recovered from the candidate but quashed the action of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa in cancelling the examination of the candidate on the ground of malpractice.