SIDHARTH PAN Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a student of LL.B. course at Rourkela Law College, has filed this application to quash the notification No.5445/C.C.IV dated 20.12.2012 in Annexure-4 issued by Assistant Controller of Examinations penalizing him for taking recourse to unfair means at the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2011 by canceling his result of the examination and debarring him from appearing in any examination prior to examination of 2013. He further seeks for a direction to the opposite parties to publish his result of 1st semester LL.B. Examination 2012 and allow him to appear in the last 6th Semester Examination of LL.B conducted by the Sambalpur University.

(2.) The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner enrolled himself into LL.B. Course in Rourkela Law College in the year 2009. He appeared in the 1st Semester LL.B. Examination in 2009-2010, but could not succeed. Therefore, he appeared in 1st semester LL.B Examination of 2011 having Roll No.0509NLLB036. His result of 1st Semester Examination 2011 was withheld on the ground that while appearing in paper-II of the said examination on 14.01.2012 he had adopted unfair means. When the result remained withheld and no action was taken by the University authority till filling up the form for 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012, he filled up the form on 13.10.2012. Then a notice dated 09.11.2012 was issued to him to show-cause why action shall not be taken against him for violating the rule of examination to which he replied denying all the charges and also appeared before the inquiry committee. When the enquiry process was going on the Assistant Registrar/C.O.E. of Sambalpur University issued Admit Card to him authorizing him to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the examination which started on 08.12.2012 and finished on 22.12.2012. After completion of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 he received the impugned letter under Annexure-4 dated 26.12.2012 on 20.12.2012 after the said impugned letter, the petitioner was penalized with remark that his result of the examination has been cancelled and he has been debarred from appearing in any examination prior to 2013. The petitioner along with other three students namely, Kumar Vivek, Ajit Toppo and Sushil Kumar Sahoo to whom notices were issued to explain why disciplinary action will not be taken against them for violation of examination rules while appearing in Paper-II of the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011. So far as Ajit Toppo and Sushil Kumar Sahoo as mentioned above in the said impugned letter are concerned it was mentioned that they were penalized earlier with remarks against their name as "Result of the Examination is cancelled". The said examinees also had appeared in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 along with the petitioner and both of them cleared their paper whereas the result of the petitioner again was withheld. But, subsequently opposite party nos.2 and 3 claimed that the petitioner was in possession of incriminating materials while examination of Paper-II of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011 was in progress. No signature of the petitioner had been obtained nor such incriminating materials had been recovered from the petitioner and no endorsement was obtained from the petitioner. The petitioner has completed 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Semester during his study period. As he has not cleared his 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011, he has not been allowed to appear in 6th Semester LL.B Examination. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14292/2014 which was disposed of by order dated 06.08.2014 directing to consider the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

(3.) Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner filled up the form to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and rightly or wrongly if the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the examination then in that case the Statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature as worked itself out and the candidature cannot be refused subsequently for any infirmity which should not be looked into before canceling to appear in the examination. It is further urged that the plea of mistake in permitting the petitioner to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 is not also permissible once the petitioner is permitted to appear in the examination rightly or wrongly by the authority. More so, the procedure as envisaged under the Statute 214 of the University First Statute 1990 has not been followed nor the allegation against the petitioner for using incriminating materials has been established nor those materials have been produced at the time of inquiry nor the same has been signed by the candidate while appearing in the examination. Non-supply of incriminating materials amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated that the printed materials have been utilized for imposition of all penalty but that itself cannot be construed to be an incriminating materials to be used against the petitioner for imposing so called penalty. It is urged that once the petitioner has been permitted to fill up the form to appear in all the subjects for 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and consequently he appeared in the examination, non-publication of result is hit by the principle of estoppels. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for a direction to publish his result of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and also to allow him to appear in 6th Semester LL.B Examination as he has already passed 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Semesters Examination during currency of the course. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon Shri Krishan v. the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 1976 AIR(SC) 376, Kamalendu Prasad Padhi v. The Sambalpur University and ors, 1976 AIR(Ori) 134 and Arjit Kumar Patra v. Vice Chancellor, Sambalpur University and others, 2003 AIR(Ori) 34.