DILIP KUMAR GANGULI Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three applications have been filed by three students against the Utkal University represented by its Registrar for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mahdamus or any other appropriate Writ or Orders calling upon them to show cause as to why Notification No. C -11.4779 dated 20th July 1967, of the University Syndicate penalising them for having taken recourse to unfair means at the Annual Examination of the First Year Degree course in Commerce and cancelling their results for the said examination and debarring them from appearing at any of the examinations prior to the Annual University Examination of 1968, shall not be quashed.

(2.) AS all the three applicants were affected by the above common notification of the University Syndicate and the reliefs claimed in all the three petitions are the same on the common grounds urged on their behalf, all these applications were heard together analogously and will be governed by this common judgment.

(3.) THE Petitioners in O.J.C. 190/67 and 230/67 were students of the First Year Degree Course in Commerce of the Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, while the Petitioner in O.J.C. 190/67 was a student of Bhadrak College undergoing the same course of study, and all of them were candidates sitting for the 1st Year Degree examination in Commerce held by the Utkal University, commencing from the 10th March 1957, in the old Assembly Hall within the premises of the Ravenshaw College, which was the centre for the said examination. There were also many other candidates appearing for the said examination alongwith the present Petitioners. The first day of the examination passed off smoothly and the second day, that is, 11th March 1967, was fixed for the examination of English paper and it also passed off in peaceful background without any untoward incident. The result of this examination was announced on 3rd July 1967, when the names of successful candidates were published ill a list affixed to the notice board of the University along side a second list publishing the names of candidates whose results had been withheld. The present Petitioners found their names to have been listed in the second list withholding their results, at about noon that day. Thereafter, the same day, the Petitioners received notices containing some charges against them and alleging adoption of malpractice and unfair means at the aforesaid examination and to show cause why their results should not be cancelled. The specific charges in the said notice were as follows.