LOKANATH MISHRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Vice-Chancellor and members of the Syndicate of the Utkal University in the following circumstances. The petitioner was a student who appeared in June, 1950, for the Supplementary Matriculation Examination of the Utkal University at Joypur Centre. His Boll No. was 1405. He sat for the whole examination and answered all the papers. On valuation, it was found that his answer papers secured sufficient marks which, in the ordinary course, would have resulted in his having been declared as passed. When the results were published, his name was shown in the list of successful candidates sent to the Headmaster, Board hiGH School, Joypur, but scored out with a note in the remarks column "expelled" by notification No. E. O. 349 dated the 1st September, 1950, of tthe University, published in the Orissa Gazette, it was stated that the petitioner had recourse to unfair means and as a penalty his results was cancelled and that he was debarred from appearing at any of the examination prior to the annual examinations of 1953.

(2.) It would appeal on the 29th June, 1950, a telegram was received by the Registrar of the University purporting to be one from Gadadhar Mohapatra to the effect that this petitioner and another by name Suryanarayana Bebarta bearing roll No. 1439 copied in the examination hall at Joypur centre at the Supplementary Matriculation. A petition also to that effect was later on received by the Registrar from the same person. The Vice-chancellor, thereupon, wrote letters to Chief Examiners in all the subjects asking them immediately to compare the answer books of the two candidates with Roll No. 1405 of the Joypur centre and report, if there was similarity in their answers with a request also to transmit the answer books to the University Office. The Vice-Chancellor also (?) on the Superintendent of the Joypur centre to send the University the seat-chart of the Joypur centre. Reports were received from all the examiners as also the seat-chart from the centre Superintendent. Thereupon the Syndicate met on the 30th August 1950. The reports indicated that there was somewhat striking similarity in the answers of both the roll numbers. Some of the examiners were or the opinion that it was roll No. 1405 that copied from roll No. 1439. On a consideration of these reports and the seat-chart, the Syndicate cancelled the results of both the candidates and imposed further punishment by way of debarring them from appearing at any of the examinations prior to the annual examinations of 1953.

(3.) It is. in the first instance, strenuously argued that the petitioner's name having been shown in the successful candidates which had been sent by the Matriculation Board to the Syndicate and the list having been approved it is no longer open to the Syndicate to cancel the candidate's name out of it. For this, reliance is placed on the fact that the candidate's name is shown in the list of successful candidates sent to the Headmaster of the centre and also on the minutes of the proceedings of the Syndicate dated the 30th August, 1950, which shows resolution No. 83 as follows: "Resolved that the results of the Supplementary Matriculation Examination as recommended by the Matriculation Board be approved, published and printed in the University Calendar." It is accordingly contended that the cancellation thereafter is ultra vires and that the petitioner is entitled to be treated as a passed candidate and that the Syndicate should now be directed to give effect to this result. We are clearly of the opinion that this contention is untenable. The resolution of the syndicate above quoted and the list of successful candidates sent to the Head Master of Joypur Centre must be reasonably understood with reference to the context. The very proceedings of the Syndicate dated the 30th August, 1950, clearly show that by the earlier resolution No. 82, the result of this petitioner was cancelled. Hence the approval of the list by resolution No. 83, must be taken to be for the list with the petitioner's name cancelled. There is no substance in this argument and we must hold that there has yet been no approval by the Syndicate of the results of this candidate and that he is entitled to no relief on that footing.