AASMITA PATNAIK Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Utkal University in its notification No. 231 dated 22-4-1998 at Annexure-A penalised the petitioner by cancelling her result of Plus Three Final Degree Examination, 1997 and further debarring her from appearing at the next examination. The validity of the aforesaid imposition of penalty is assailed by her in this writ application.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that she was admitted to appear in the Plus Three Final Degree Examination, 1997 as a regular candidate from K. S. O. Women's College, Darghapatna, Cuttack. Her roll muster was 137094033 On 15-4-1997 when she was taking History Paper-III examination, a flying squad entered the hall at about 12 noon. She was sitting in the front row of the hall close to the seat of the invigilator. At that time someone from behind her back threw some papers which fall by her side. She had no knowledge or scope to know who threw it as she was busy in writing her answers. A member of the flying squad lifted the paper from the floor and asked the petitioner to explain her conduct with regard to it. Besides denying her knowledge, she asserted that she did not utilise those papers for answering any question. When the result of Plus Three Arts Examination, 1997 was published, she found that her result was withheld for alleged malpractice. To her utter surprise, she was asked in letter dated 29-12-1997 at Annexure-4 to show cause as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against her for being in possession of unauthorised material in the examination hall on 15-4-1997 and using the same in answering the questions. The petitioner submitted her explanation at Annexure-5 denying the allegations. On 29-1-1998 she appeared before the Inquiry Committee and verified the material alleged to have been found in her possession. On examination, she noticed that except the answer for short question No. 4(b)(ii) "Dandi March" where there is some similarity with the answer made by her, no other answer tallied with the incriminating material. She stated before the Inquiry Committee that question No. 4(b)(ii) is nothing but a general knowledge which could be answered by a common person. The result of her examination was not published and later she could know that her examination was cancelled and she was debarred from appearing of next examination.

(3.) The Controller of Examinations - opposite party No. 3 has filed counter affidavit. His case is that the petitioner was booked for malpractice in Core-2 History Paper-III as per memo of the Centre Superintendent dated 15-4-1997. The Centre Superintendent sent the petitioner's admit card, her answer script in History Paper-III along with six sheets of printed incriminating materials on which she had signed. The Conducting Board examined the answer scripts and incriminating materials and opined that the petitioner had used the seized incriminating materials. Thereafter a "show cause notice" was issued to her and the Conducting Board reviewed the matter on 17-3-1998 and found her guilty. The decision was approved by this Vice-Chancellor which was published as per the impugned notification at Annexure-A.The principal of the college who is opposite party No. 4 in the case, has filed counter affidavit. Her case is that she was Centre Superintendent during the relevant period of examination and the flying squad members told her that no material was recovered from any student but some materials were found on the floor. She, as the Centre Superintendent, as per the instruction of the flying squad forwarded the materials said to have been recovered by the flying squad from the floor along with the answer scripts without any verification.