KUMARI BIMLA DEVI Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India brought by a girl student Bimla Devi, against the University of the Punjab through its Vice-Chancellor, praying that the University be directed to cancel its order disqualifying the petitioner for the year 1950, 1951 and 1952, prohibiting them from taking action on the basis of the order above mentioned and that they be ordered to declare petitioner as having passed her Intermediate examination.

(2.) Bimla Devi is a student who appeared for the Intermediate Examination of the Punjab University which was held in September, 1950. She claims that she was a brilliant student, that she solved all her questions to her entire satisfaction and that she would have secured sufficient number of marks to pass the examination for which she appeared. On the 27th September, 1950 she appeared for the practical examination in Physics. She performed a certain experiment and took observations which wrote down in her answer-book which was handed over to the Examiner, in K.K. Nagpal. She alleges that during the course of the examination in Practical Physics the Examiners was throughout present and that she did nothing which could even savour of dishonesty. She was accused of having allowed another candidate whose roll number was 54 to copy the observations which she the petitioner had taken. On the 1st Nov ember, 1950 the University by a letter, No. 17833/MOS, called upon her to explain as to how the observations made by her and by Roll No. 54 were identical. She was also told that it was not possible to have identical observations by two different candidates. On the 13th November 1950 she sent her explanation in which she denied that she had allowed Roll No. 54 to copy out the observations. She also mentioned that during the time she was performing the experiment nobody except the examiner came near her and as soon as she had finished the experiment she handed over the answer book to the Examiner. She denied that Roll No. 54 ever came nearer her or that she allowed the girl with Roll No. 54 to copy out anything from her answer-book. She also stated that Roll No. 54 was neither a relative of hers nor was she interested in her. On the 14th March, 1951, according to the petition, the petitioner was informed that she had been disqualified under Regualtion 12 for a period of three years, that is 1950, 1951 and 1952.

(3.) On the 30th June 1951 the petitioner made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor under Chapter V, part III, rule 7 (really part II, Chapter III, proviso to Regulation (6) of the University Calender in which she complained -