KAMAL ARANDHRA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the son of the petitioner Sri Satyajit Arandhra is a student of First Year (Arts) of Higher Secondary Classes of the Silapathat College, Nowgaon, Assam. He was appearing in the final examination of First Year (Arts) of Higher Secondary Course conducted by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council. Accordingly Admit Card No.A-3128 (Annexure A) was issued in his favour. In the said Admit Card the subject of examination was mentioned, i.e. Assamese, Economics, Logic, Education and Political Science and English. His date of examination was fixed on 27.3.96, 30.3.96, 1.4.96, 6.4.96, 8.4.96 and 9.4.96. On 2.4.96 was a date fixed for the examination of Sociology subject. The son of the petitioner did not appear on that day as the aforesaid subject was not the subject of the petitioner's son. However, on that date i.e. on 2.4.96 one Sri Mohan Sonowal entered in the examination hall and appeared in the examination for Sociology paper without any Admit Card. When he was caught and asked by the Invigilator the said Mohan Sonowal disclosed that he was appearing on behalf of petitioner's son in his said subject. Thereafter, the said Mohan Sonowal was handed over the police by the authority of the college and the petitioner's son Sri Satyajit Arandhra was also expelled for the remaining papers, namely, English, Political Science and Assamese. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his wife requested the Principal to allow their son to appear the other subjects. They also requested the Principal of the said college not to debar their son from appearing in the next paper and also not to spoil his career life. But the Principal declined to accept their proposal. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner has moved this Court.

(3.) Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri Satyajit Arandhra was unjustly expelled and deprived him from appearing in the examination in a most illegal manner. On 2.4.96 was a date fixed for the examination of Sociology subject. He did not appear on that day as the aforesaid subject was not the subject of the said Satyajit Arandhra. Therefore, the question of appearing or sending another person in his place in order to appear in the said examination does not arise. Mr. Baruah also vehemently argued that, before passing the aforesaid expulsion order, petitioner's son was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Besides, a copy of the expulsion order ought to have given to the petitioner's son, but the same was also not provided to him despite several requests. It was the duty of the Principal of the Silapathat College and the Invigilator to examine the said Mohan Sonowal in presence of the petitioner's son, but this was also not done. According to Mr. Baruah, the son of the petitioner is not in any way connected with the incident of dated 2.4.96 and where there is no fault of the petitioner's son of his own, the impugned action of the respondent authority is highly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and quashed.