PRADIP KUMAR Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order as per Annexure-7 issued by the Utkal University penalising the petitioner for having adopted unfair means at the Annual Degree Examination of 1982 by cancelling his examination and debarring him from appearing at any examination prior to the Annual Degree Examination of the year 1984. It has been stated in the writ application and submitted at the hearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared at the Final B.A. (Honours) Examination of the year 1982 conducted by the Utkal University (opposite party No. 1) which commenced on and from April 15, 1982 at the B. J. B. College Centre at Bhubaneswar and had done well in all the papers. In the evening of April 26, 1982, four lecturers came to the quarters where the petitioner had been residing at Bhubaneswar and searched for the answer paper of the sixth paper of Economics Honours alleging that the petitioner had removed the said answer paper without submitting the same after the examination was over. The petitioner was taken by them and produced before the Principal of the B. J. B. College who was the Superintendent of the Examination Centre and the petitioner told him that he had submitted the answer paper to Mr. Debadatta Mishra, Lecturer in English, who was the invigilator. The petitioner waited for the result and in July, 1982, learnt from the notice that his result had been withheld. He made several representations to the concerned authorities for publication of his result as it had been withheld for no fault of his, but in vain.

(2.) As per Annexure-4 dt. Oct. 8, 1982, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Examination Disciplinary Committee on Oct. 15, 1982 and he appeared and took the same stand. He had not been asked earlier to show cause and no charges had been levelled against him in any communication addressed to him. He was asked three questions by the Disciplinary Committee, as averred in para 9 of the writ application, as to his name, the college from which he had appeared at the examination and as to why his result had been withheld. The petitioner had denied any knowledge as to why his result had been withheld by the authorities. Although the petitioner had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in Oct. 1982, nothing was done and in Jan. 1984, the examination in respect of the petitioner was cancelled and he was penalised as per Annexure-7.

(3.) The opposite parties had duly been noticed to appear for admission and hearing of the writ application. The opposite party No. 1 had entered appearance. No counteraffidavit has been filed by any of the opposite parties. This matter came up for admission and hearing in the list with the name of Mr. C.R. Nanda, Advocate, appearing for the opposite parties. No one mentioned about this matter in the first hour yesterday. When the matter came up for hearing, none appeared for the opposite parties. We sent for Mr. Nanda and he submitted that the brief had been transferred and his appearance might be ignored. He was not in a position to say as to whom the brief had been transferred. It is in these circumstances that we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner without any one appearing for the opposite parties and have proceeded to dispose of this writ application.