ANANTA PRASAD NAYAK Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner appeared at the Annual Bachelor in Commerce Examination conducted by the Utkal University in 1975 as a regular student from the Ravenshaw College at Cuttack. There are ten written papers prescribed for the said examination and petitioner appeared in all the papers from the Ravenshaw College centre of which opposite parties 2 and 3 were the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent respectively. Petitioner claims that his examination papers were appropriately valued and the marks obtained by him were tabulated and as he had secured marks sufficient enough to obtain a pass in the examination, his result was in the process of publication. Suddenly, however, the same was withheld and petitioner was served with a notice from the University in terms of Annexure-1 wherein it was stated :

(2.) The Controller of Examinations of the Utkal University filed a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and stated that neither the Invigilators nor the Centre Superintendent nor the examiners of the written papers of the petitioner reported against him. However, during the process of publication of the result, information was received in the University Office that the petitioner had adopted malpractice in the examination. Accordingly all his answer papers were collected, examined and a prima facie case of malpractice was found. The Discipline committee which enquired into the matter in the presence of the petitioner consisted of the Administrator and Dr. Misra, Professor of Philosophy. It has been pleaded that when the petitioner appeared before the Committee, the answer papers were shown to him and after inspecting all the answer papers, the petitioner stated that they were not in his handwriting. Asked as to whether the answer scripts were intact, he examined the same and stated that they were intact and there did not appear to be any evidence of any change. Petitioner acceptes that the writing 'Maa Kali' on the cover page of each of the answer papers was in his own handwriting. In view of these facts, petitioner was asked to state if he had got anything more to say or show or any further evidence to be adduced on his behalf. He stated that he had nothing more to say than what had already been stated in his explanation and declined to addue any evidence. In response to the petitioner's demand for disclosure of the source of the information by the University, petitioner had been told that the source was not material particularly when petitioner has conceded on scrutiny of the answer papers that they were not his. It has been further pleaded that the answer papers supplied by the University have perforation of U. U. at the left hand top and one particular type of stapling is adopted. The answer papers also bore a serial number on the cover. During the enquiry the position of the perforation marks on the cover page as also on the pages containing the answers were scrutinised and found to be symmetrical which prima facie satisfied the enquiry committee that the contents within the cover pages in each of the answer books had not been substituted subsequent to the perforation of the answer papers. The Controller further averred that the usual process is to collect the answer papers in the examination hall and the invigilators carry the answer papers to the Centre Superintendent and from his office they are sent to the University by insured post in properly sealed packets. In the office they are not at all opened. During 1975, the area covered by the jurisdiction of the Utkal University was divided into five zones each with a Supervisor-in-charge and the answer papers of each zone were carried by the University vehicles and staff to the respective Supervisors. The Supervisors satisfied themselves as to genuineness of seals and their being intact before taking delivery of the answer papers. The examiners met the Zonal Supervisors within a fixed period to take over their assignments and returned the packets after examining the answer papers. The Zonal Supervisor after receiving the valued scripts together with perforated mark-sheets sent them to the University Office and in the University Office tabulation was made on the basis of the perforated markfoils. In view of the strict care taken throughout from the stage of the Invigilator collecting the answer papers in the examination hall up to receiving the answer papers from the Zonal Supervisors along with marks, there was absolutely no scope for substituting the answer papers within the cover pages after the answer papers had left the candidate. The following circumstances have been stated to be the basis for the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of malpractice :-

(3.) Petitioner applied for a direction to the University authorities to produce his answer papers and counsel for the University agreed as would appear from order No. 6 dated 2-2-1976 to produce them. An endorsement on the order-sheet dated 20-2-1976 shows that counsel for the University filed the answer papers in a sealed packet. Order No. 9 dated 28-2-1977 runs thus :