JYOTI PRAKASH BISWAL Vs. REGISTRAR UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the petitioners in the above writs have prayed to enforce and implement Annexure 1 wherein they have been shown to have passed their back papers in final degree back Science (+3) Examination, 2002. They have also prayed for non applicability of Annexure 2 and 3. Since all the petitioners are students of the same college, this common order shall govern all the Writ Applications.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were 1998 Admission Batch of +3 Science course in S.S.D. College of Science and Technology (Opp. Party No. 2). They appeared at pre degree examination in 2000 and final degree examination in 2001. In the examination of 2001 Paper IV Botany, Paper IV Physics (Core l) were cancelled and they appeared again in the year 2002 in those back papers which was held on 17.4.2002 in the college of Opp. Party No. 2. According to the adverment, they were declared pass on 19.6.2002 vide Annexure l, but were not supplied with the marks either by the Utkal University Opp. Party No. 1 or by the college Opp. Party No. 2 though they have been shown as pass for which they approached the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1027 of 2002. Thereafter, the college supplied their mark sheets showing their back papers to be blank i.e., without marks though they were declared pass under Annexure 1, in the meantime the petitioners were intimated to appear in the special pre degree examination and special final degree examination to be held on 16.2.2003 under Annexures 2 and 3. According to the adverment, fail mark sheets supplied to them is incorrect for non showing of their marks sheets supplied to them is incorrect for non showing of their marks in the Physics and Botany Paper IV, IV I and they have been deprived of the opportunity of higher studies for the subsequent fail result and therefore being compelled by the arbitrary action of University, they have filed the Writ Applications for the enforcement of their pass result (Annexure l).

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners have raised the contention that no notice of mal practice was issued as required under Statute 214 of the Statute. The result was withheld for any other reason which does not include mal practice/mass copy/unfair means and Ext. F, the order of cancellation does not relate to 1998 Batch. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Applications. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 1 has contended that no notice was required in case of mass copy. Other reasons include mal practice/mass copy and adoption of unfair means. According to the Learned Counsel Ext. F very well relates to 1998 Batch as their results were withheld under Ext. D. Learned Counsel further submits that since the petitioners were very much in the examination hall of the college, they cannot be segregated from others as the mass copy or adoption of unfair means was in progress during the visit of the University squad on 17.4.2002 and has prayed to dismiss the Writ Applications.