BHAGWATI PARSHAD Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was admitted to hearing, by a Division Bench in order to examine the ratio decidendi in Prem Nath Goel v. Punjabi University, Patiala C.W. No. 830 of 1967 decided on 21st November, 1967.

(2.) THE facts are in a narrow compass. Bhagwati Parshad Petitioner was a student of the Mohindra College, Patiala, and he appeared in the Pre -Engineering Examination in April -May, 1968 under roll No. 5. On 26th August, 1968, the Petitioner took his examination in the subject of English paper 'A', the time for which was from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Before the start of the examination, the Centre Superintendent imparted the usual instructions to the examinees that they should search their pockets and dispossess themselves of any objectionable material. Thereafter the Petitioner along with others commenced taking the examination and it has been averred on his behalf that at about 3.15 p.m. the Deputy Superintendent of the Centre came to the seat of the Petitioner and noticed some printed leaves torn out of a book relating to the subject of examination of that day lying behind him. It is alleged that the Deputy Superintendent planted the said papers on the Petitioner and he was thereafter taken to the Centre Superintendent where he expressly denied the possession of the incriminating material and it is further alleged that the latter was satisfied with his explanation and did not ask the Petitioner to make any statement. The Petitioner was, however, given another answer book to continue with the rest of the paper.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent University by its Registrar, the averments of the Petitioner regarding the actual incident in the Examination Hall have been controverted. On the contrary it has been averred that on the relevant day when the examination was going on the Supervisor on suspicion reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of the Centre who then searched the Petitioner in the presence of the Supervisor. As a result of this search the incriminating papers were recovered from the pocket of the Petitioner, and this material admittedly related to the paper in question and some of the answers to the question - -paper were also contained therein. It has been further averred that it was false that the Centre Superintendent was satisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner and that in fact the Petitioner had categorically refused to make any statement. An endorsement to this effect is said to have been made by the Superintendent on the reporting papers forthwith. The version of the incident given by the Petitioner has been expressly characterised as false.