RAMESH KUMAR Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners appeared in English Paper II of B. A. , T. D. C. Part II, examination of the Punjabi University held on May 13, 1971, from the Center located in the Nehru Memorial College, Mansa. An anonymous letter had been written to the University by a candidate on April 23, 1971, pointing out that there was large scale copying and adoption of unfair means by the candidates appearing at that Center and that the next examination for B. A. would take place in that center on April 27, 1971 and May 11, 1971. It was suggested that surprise raids may be made. On May 11, 1971, the Assistant Registrar of the University paid a surprise visit to that Center and found a large number of books thrown out of the hall through the broken window panes and the smuggling in of answers to questions through the broken window panes. The Assistant Registrar recorded the statements of the Supervisory Staff who admitted that there was mass scale adoption of unfair means but they could not help. As a result of the report of the assistant Registrar, the Punjabi University sent a circular to all the Examiners to mark the answer books carefully and to see whether there was copying or adoption of unfair means noticeable from the answer books. The Examiner who evaluated the answer books of the petitioners sent a report that the answers to questions 2, 3, and 5 of all the petitioners tallied with each other which clearly showed that they had copied from one another or from a common source. The expert of the subject also concurred in that opinion. The petitioners were issued a questionnaire. The petitioners were issued notices to appear before the Assistant registrar on August 14, 1971. They actually attended his office on August 16, 1971, when each one of them was issued a questionnaire. The petitioners admitted that the answers to questions 2, 3 and 5 in their answer books tallied with each other, but they explained that the resemblance of the answers was due to the fact that they had studied at the same coaching college known as Taxila academy, Mansa. and these questions had been discussed by the professor who dictated their answers which the petitioners memorized and they reproduced the same in the answer books. It was also stated by them that previously they were students of the Correspondence Courses and such like questions found place in the lectures issued to them which they had studied. They stated that they could not produce any note book showing that these questions had been dealt with in the class room or the answers were dictated by the Professor which they had memorized. They were specifically asked if they wanted to appear before the unfair Means Committee to which they replied in the negative. To another question they replied that they did not want to produce any evidence in defence. The Unfair Means Committee examined the answer books of the petitioners and finding that their answers to questions 2, 3 and 5 tallied with each other came to the conclusion that the petitioners had received help from one another or from a common source and had thus adopted unfair means in the examination. They were disqualified for two years under Ordinance 4 (b) of the Ordinances of the University relating to the use of unfair means in the examination. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition to which a reply has been filed by the university.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the rules of natural justice were violated inasmuch as they were not supplied copies of the anonymous report, the statements of Iqbal Singh and the Supervisory staff recorded on May 11, 1971, and the conclusions arrived at by the Unfair Means Committee. There is no merit in this submission. The anonymous complaint which was made on April 23, 1971, long before the examination held on May 13, 1971, did not relate to the petitioners. It was a general complaint about the adoption of unfair means on a mass scale in the Center. The statements of Iqbal Singh and the Supervisory Staff recorded on May 11, 1971, also did not relate to the petitioners,. as their examination took place on May 13, 1971. The statement recorded on May 11, 1971, related to the examination of that day or the adoption of unfair means at the Center generally. The petitioners were not entitled to the report of the Unfair means Committee setting out its conclusions so as to given them a notice to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on them. A specific question was put to the petitioners as to whether they wanted to appear before the Unfair Means Committee or to produce evidence in defence, to which they replied in the negative. Thereafter the Unfair Means Committee was justified in considering their cases on merits and to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the petitioners were guilty of the charge of using unfair means or not.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners then argued that there is no finding by the Unfair Means Committee as to whether the petitioners copied from one another or from some specific common source and, therefore, the case is not covered by Ordinance 4 (b ). I find no merit in this submission as well Ordinance 4 (b) reads as under:-