DEBADUTTA SINGH DEO Vs. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some of the students of the Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, Ankushpur (shortly referred to as the 'S.M.I.T.') affiliated to the Berhampur University have filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 28th February, 1986 issued by the Controller of Examinations of Berhampur University, as per Annexure-1, cancelling the M.B.A. Part II Examination on the ground that there has been extensive and wide spread malpractice including mass copying of the scripts in various papers and unfair practice in the preparation of the dissertation of the said Examination. The notification purports to have been issued by order of the Administrator, opposite party No. 2.

(2.) The M.B.A., Part II Examination, 1985, was held between 17-4-86 and 4-6-86. As the programme of the Examination as per Annexure-3 indicates, the examinees had to appear in ten different papers, one paper a day, at the Post-graduate Centre for Management Studies. The dissertation for the examination were to be submitted by 25-7-1986. On approval of the thesis of the candidates the viva voce test on the dissertation was to be held by the Examiners who evaluated the thesis. The vive voce examinations were held on 16-9-86, 22-9-86 and 23-9-86. When the theory papers of the examinees were evaluated by the Examiners, some adverse reports were received from them. The Board of Conducting Examiners appointed under the University Statute passed the results and sent it to the Administrator in whom was bestowed the powers of the Syndicate for approving the results and publishing the same. The Administrator instead of publishing the results sent it back to the Board for reconsideration on the ground that due weightage had not been given by the Board to the reports submitted by the Examiners. The Board met again on 24th and 26th of November, 1986 and on reconsideration of the matter accepted the allegations contained in the reports of the Examiners that there was mass copying by the examinees. On consideration of the reports of the Board the Administrator cancelled the results of the University which decision was notified on 28-11-86.

(3.) The aforementioned decision of the Administrator is challenged by the petitioners mainly on the grounds that the allegations are vague and general in nature; that the reports of the Examiners even accepting all the statements contained therein to be true do not make out a case of extensive malpractice or mass copying in all the papers and the dissertations as held by the Administrator; and that the decision of the Administrator is motivated since some of the teaching staff in the University who were interested in opening M.B.A. class in the University tried to tarnish the name of the petitioners' institution for that purpose. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Board of Conducting Examiners did not apply its mind properly while endorsing the views expressed in the reports of the Examiners.